THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES 

PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE 

CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION 

NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH 

convenes the 

TWENTY-NINTH MEETING 

ADVISORY BOARD ON 

RADIATION AND WORKER HEALTH 

APRIL 11, 2005 

The verbatim transcript of the Meeting of the 

Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health held 

telephonically on April 11, 2005. 
 

2 

C O N T E N T S 

April 11, 2005 

ATTENDANCE/ROLL CALL

DR. PAUL ZIEMER, CHAIR

DR. LEW WADE, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY 

REVIEW STATUS OF ACTIVITIES RELATIVE TO IAAP 

AND MALLINCKRODT 15 

DR. PAUL ZIEMER, CHAIR 

REVIEW DRAFT AGENDA FOR UPCOMING MEETING 

DR. PAUL ZIEMER, CHAIR 81 

TASK FOR SC&A: 

SPECIAL EXPOSURE COHORT PETITION WORK 97 

DR. LEW WADE, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY 

PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD 118 

ADJOURN 149 

COURT REPORTER’S CERTIFICATE 150 

 7 
3 

TRANSCRIPT LEGEND 

The following transcript contains quoted material. 

Such material is reproduced as read or spoken. 

In the following transcript: a dash (--) indicates 

an unintentional or purposeful interruption of a 

sentence. An ellipsis (. . .) indicates halting speech 

or an unfinished sentence in dialogue or omission(s) of 

word(s) when reading written material. 

-- (sic) denotes an incorrect usage or pronunciation 

of a word which is transcribed in its original form as 

reported. 

-- (phonetically) indicates a phonetic spelling of 

the word if no confirmation of the correct spelling is 

available. 

-- "uh-huh" represents an affirmative response, and 

"uh-uh" represents a negative response. 

-- "*" denotes a spelling based on phonetics, 

without reference available. 

-- (inaudible)/ (unintelligible) signifies speaker 

failure, usually failure to use a microphone. 

In the following transcript (off microphone) 

refers to microphone malfunction or speaker's neglect 

to depress "on" button. 
 

 

4

 P A R T I C I P A N T S 

(By Group, in Alphabetical Order) 

BOARD MEMBERS 

CHAIR 

ZIEMER, Paul L., Ph.D.

Professor Emeritus 

School of Health Sciences 

Purdue University

Lafayette, Indiana 

EXECUTIVE SECRETARY 

WADE, Lewis, Ph.D.

Senior Science Advisor 

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 

Washington, DC 

MEMBERSHIP 

ANDERSON, Henry A., M.D.

Chief Medical Officer 

Occupational and Environmental Health

Wisconsin Division of Public Health 

Madison, Wisconsin 

DeHART, Roy Lynch, M.D., M.P.H.

Director 

The Vanderbilt Center for Occupational and Environmental

Medicine 

Professor of Medicine 

Nashville, Tennessee 

ESPINOSA, Richard Lee

Sheet Metal Workers Union Local #49 

Johnson Controls 

Los Alamos National Laboratory

Espanola, New Mexico 
 

5 

GIBSON, Michael H.

President 

Paper, Allied-Industrial, Chemical, and Energy Union

Local 5-4200 

Miamisburg, Ohio 

GRIFFON, Mark A.

President 

Creative Pollution Solutions, Inc.

Salem, New Hampshire 

MELIUS, James Malcom, M.D., Ph.D.

Director 

New York State Laborers' Health and Safety Trust Fund

Albany, New York 

MUNN, Wanda I.

Senior Nuclear Engineer (Retired)

Richland, Washington 

PRESLEY, Robert W.

Special Projects Engineer

BWXT Y12 National Security Complex

Clinton, Tennessee 

ROESSLER, Genevieve S., Ph.D.

Professor Emeritus 

University of Florida

Elysian, Minnesota 

STAFF/VENDORS 

CORI HOMER, Committee Management Specialist, NIOSH

STEVEN RAY GREEN, Certified Merit Court Reporter 
6 

AUDIENCE PARTICIPANTS 

ADDA, SUSIE

ANDERSON, BOB, IAAP

BEHLING, HANS, SC&A

BEHLING, KATHY, SC&A

BELL, TOM, SC&A

BERRY, MS.(UNINTELLIGIBLE), ANWAG

BROCK, DENISE, UNWW

COOKMEYER, BEVERLY, IAAP

DICKERSON, RICHIE, NIOSH

DORNFELD, DEBBIE, JIM TALENT’S

ELLIOTT, LARRY, NIOSH

FIELD, BILL, UNIV. OF IOWA

FITZGERALD, JOE, SC&A

FUORTES, LAURENCE, UNIV. OF IOWA

GOOD, JANET, IAAP

GRAHAM, PAULA, IAAP

HOMOKI-TITUS, LIZ, HHS

HORGAN, TOM, SENATOR BOND

IVERSON, TROY, IAAP

KEEBER, VICKI

KOTSCH, JEFFREY L., DOL

LOVING, (UNINTELLIGIBLE)

MAURO, JOHN, SC&A

MAKHIJANI, ARJUN, SC&A

MCGOLERICK, ROBERT, HHS

MCKEEL, DAN, MD, WASHINGTON UNIV.

MITAS, JIM, CONGRESSMAN TODD AKIN

NETON, JIM, NIOSH

NUGENT, MARY, GAO

ROBERTS, DELORES, IAAP

RYDER, (UNINTELLIGIBLE), IAAP

SAMSON, BOB, GAO

SCHUMACHER-KORDING, SHARON, IAAP

STAUDT, DAVID, CDC

THOMPSON, KATHLEEN, IAAP

WEINREICH, REBA, IAAP

WILEY, SHIRLEY, IAAP

ZIMMERMAN, SUE, CONGRESSMAN LEACH 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

7 

P R O C E E D I N G S

 (8:00 a.m.) 

ATTENDANCE/ROLL CALL 

DR. ZIEMER: Cori, would you take the roll call of 

the Board members, and then we'll ask the other 

members of the public and staff to identify 

themselves. 

MS. HOMER: Dr. Anderson? 

DR. ANDERSON: Present. 

MS. HOMER: Dr. DeHart? 

DR. DEHART: Present. 

MS. HOMER: Mr. Espinosa? 

MR. ESPINOSA: Present. 

MS. HOMER: Mr. Gibson? 

MR. GIBSON: Present. 

MS. HOMER: Okay. Mr. Griffon? 

MR. GRIFFON: Present. 

MS. HOMER: Dr. Melius? 

DR. MELIUS: Present. 

MS. HOMER: Ms. Munn? 

MS. MUNN: Here. 

MS. HOMER: Mr. Owens? 

 (No response) 

MS. HOMER: Mr. Presley? 

MR. PRESLEY: Here. 

MS. HOMER: Dr. Roessler? 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

8 

DR. ROESSLER: Here. 

MS. HOMER: Okay. Mr. Owens? 

 (No response) 

MS. HOMER: Okay, and Dr. Ziemer, you're present. 

DR. ZIEMER: Yes, present, thank you. So it appears 

all the Board members are present with the 

exception of Mr. Owens. 

MS. HOMER: Correct. 

DR. ZIEMER: And the Designated Federal Official, Lew 

Wade --

DR. WADE: Yes, present. 

DR. ZIEMER: -- is present. Could we also now for 

the record ask the various Federal officials to 

identify themselves. 

MR. ELLIOTT: Larry Elliott and Jim Neton in 

Cincinnati. 

MS. HOMER: This is Cori Homer and Richie Dickerson 

from NIOSH Atlanta. 

MR. KOTSCH: Jeff Kotsch with the Department of 

Labor, Washington. 

MR. STAUDT: This is David Staudt with CDC in 

Pittsburgh. 

MS. NUGENT: Mary Nugent with the Government 

Accountability Office in Chicago. 

MR. SAMSON: Bob Samson, also with GAO, in 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

9 

Washington. 

DR. ZIEMER: Any other Federal officials? 

MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: Liz Homoki-Titus with Health and 

Human Services. 

MR. MCGOLERICK: Robert McGolerick with Health and 

Human Services. 

DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Let me ask for Congressional 

representatives. 

(Whereupon, two participants began speaking at once, 

rendering both unintelligible.) 

DR. ZIEMER: I'm sorry, I think we had two people 

simultaneously there. Could we hear those 

again? 

MS. ZIMMERMAN: Sue Zimmerman, Congressman Leach's 

office, Burlington, Iowa. 

DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. Was there another one? 

MS. DORNFELD: Debbie Dornfeld, Jim Talent, Missouri. 

DR. ZIEMER: Any others? 

MR. MITAS: Jim Mitas with Congressman Todd Akin, St. 

Louis. 

DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. And any others? 

 (No responses) 

DR. ZIEMER: Then let's proceed with members of the 

public. You all just have to do this somewhat 

at random. I can't see who's there, so -- and 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

10 

speak very clearly for our reporter, please. 

MR. ANDERSON: (Unintelligible) alphabetically, Bob 

Anderson, IAAP, Mt. Wheaton*, Illinois. 

MS. BERRY:* (Unintelligible) Berry, Alliance of 

Nuclear Worker Advocacy Group. 

MS. BROCK: Denise Brock, Missouri, United Nuclear 

Weapons Workers, for Mallinckrodt. 

MS. WEINRICH: Reba Weinrich, Oaklocka,* Illinois, 

IAAP, (unintelligible) Iowa. 

MS. ADDA:* Susie Adda, Dothan, Alabama. 

MS. ROBERTS: Delores Roberts, IAAP, Middletown. 

MS. GRAHAM: Paula Graham, IAAP, Fort Madison, Iowa 

(unintelligible). 

DR. FUORTES: Laurence Fuortes, University of Iowa. 

MS. (UNINTELLIGIBLE): (Unintelligible), Des Moines 

Register. 

DR. MCKEEL: This is Dan McKeel from St. Louis for 

the UNWW. 

MR. IVERSON: Troy Iverson, IAAP, West Burlington. 

MR. FIELD: Bill Field, University of Iowa. 

MS. THOMPSON: Kathleen Thompson, Sperry, Iowa, IAAP, 

Middletown. 

MR. (UNINTELLIGIBLE): (Unintelligible) IAAP, 

Burlington, Iowa -- or what's -- Middletown, 

Iowa. 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

11 

MS. (UNINTELLIGIBLE): (Unintelligible), Weaver, 

Iowa, IAAP survivor. 

MS. SCHUMACHER-KORDING: Sharon Schumacher-Kording, 

(unintelligible), Iowa, IAAP out of Burlington 

(unintelligible) plant. 

MS. GOOD: Janet Good, Winfield, Iowa, IAAP 

Middletown, Iowa. 

MS. WILEY: Shirley Wiley, IAAP, Burlington, Iowa. 

DR. ZIEMER: Are there any other members of the 

public that have not yet identified themselves? 

MS. (UNINTELLIGIBLE): (Unintelligible), IAAP, 

Burlington, Iowa. 

MS. RYDER:* (Unintelligible) Ryder, IAAP, 

Burlington, Iowa, survivor. 

MS. COOKMEYER:* Beverly Cookmeyer, IAAP, Burlington, 

Iowa. 

MS. (UNINTELLIGIBLE): (Unintelligible), Burlington, 

Iowa, IAAP. 

DR. ZIEMER: Any others? 

 (No responses) 

DR. ZIEMER: Thank you very much. I assume we now 

have identified everyone... Board. This is 

Paul Ziemer --

UNIDENTIFIED: Dr. Ziemer, there are people from 

SC&A, also. 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

12 

DR. ZIEMER: Oh, I didn't mean to overlook them. 

Please identify those SC&A -- 

DR. MAKHIJANI: This is Arjun Makhijani. 

MR. (UNINTELLIGIBLE): This is Bob (unintelligible). 

MR. BELL: Tom Bell. 

DR. MAURO: John Mauro. 

MR. FITZGERALD: And Joe Fitzgerald. 

MR. (UNINTELLIGIBLE): Robert (unintelligible). 

DR. BEHLING: Hans Behling, SC&A. 

MS. BEHLING: Kathy Behling, SC&A. 

DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. We didn't intend to overlook 

the Board's own contractor here. Any others 

that we missed? 

 (No responses) 

DR. ZIEMER: Thank you very much. Then let me 

officially call the meeting to order. This is 

the meeting of the Advisory Board on Radiation 

and Worker Health. The agenda for the meeting 

has been published. The various items on the 

agenda, the time estimates, are based on our 

best estimate of how much time would be needed 

for particular items. However, if we complete 

items earlier than shown, we'll move ahead 

sequentially with the next items on the agenda. 

I do want to provide an initial opportunity for our 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

13 

Designated Federal Official, Lewis Wade, to 

make some opening remarks, but we're pleased 

that everyone has joined us this morning and 

Lew, please add your remarks and then we'll 

address the agenda directly. 

DR. WADE: Thank you, Paul. I'd like to add my 

thanks to the Board and the public for joining 

us. I'd also like to put my apologies out for 

some of the confusion that involved trying to 

schedule this meeting. Certainly we know your 

time is valuable and we appreciate your -- your 

bearing with us towards this discussion. 

From my point of view the discussions today really 

are to -- to make sure that we're all on the 

same page and we have our thoughts together as 

we head into our next regularly scheduled Board 

meeting, which is the 25th, 26th and 27th in 

Cedar Rapids, Iowa. I think there is important 

business for us to do, most notably business 

regarding the Mallinckrodt downtown petition as 

well as the Iowa petition. And I think it's 

terribly important that we go into those 

meetings with everyone being fully aware of the 

information that will be available, that is 

available, and have an opportunity now to try 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

14 

and shape that meeting in any way that the 

Board members feel most appropriate. We will 

end -- we will have a discussion today of a 

very tentative agenda for that meeting to be 

sure that we have allotted adequate time in the 

right sequence for the discussions and reaching 

closure on those most important items. 

So again, welcome, and thank you. 

DR. ZIEMER: Thank you very much, Lew. Board 

members, as we proceed for the -- particularly 

for the benefit of Ray, our recorder, please, 

every time you speak, be sure to identify 

yourself so that we have that correctly on the 

record. 

I also want to remind everyone that the thrust of 

what we are doing today has to do with process. 

We want to make sure that -- because there have 

been some subcommittee meetings that have 

ensued since our last full Board meeting, and 

there are some various recommendations that are 

underway. And we want to make sure that the 

Board is fully apprised of not only those 

activities but activities of the contractor, 

and to make sure that we all are in -- in some 

level of agreement on how to proceed on several 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

15 

issues. 

REVIEW STATUS OF ACTIVITIES RELATIVE TO IAAP AND 

MALLINCKRODT 

Now let's turn to the agenda , which the first item 

is to review the status of activities relative 

to the Iowa and to the Mallinckrodt petitions. 

We'll start with the Iowa. 

First of all, Board members received from me on March 

16th a memo which apprised them of a 

development that occurred after our Board 

meeting. You may recall that at the Board 

meeting a recommendation was developed that, in 

essence, was to go to the Secretary of Health 

and Human Services through the Director of 

NIOSH recommending Special Exposure Cohort 

status for the Iowa petitioners, at least for 

the defined time when the radioactivity was 

there. That -- after that -- 

THE OPERATOR: Excuse me, this is the operator. 

DR. ZIEMER: Yes, operator? 

THE OPERATOR: I have a Richard Espinosa that did not 

have the pass code. Does he belong on? 

DR. ZIEMER: Yes, Richard Espinosa -- 

THE OPERATOR: I'll join him on. 

DR. ZIEMER: -- should -- should be aboard. 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

16 

THE OPERATOR: I'll join him on. Just one moment. 

DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. 

THE OPERATOR: He's on now, sir. 

DR. ZIEMER: Good morning, Rich, we've -- we have 

already started, as --

MR. ESPINOSA: Yeah, I got cut off and I didn't 

remember the pass code. 

DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Well, we're just getting underway 

on the agenda. 

In any event, the development in the Iowa petition 

had to do with the review of the revision of 

the site profile or the -- the document that 

had been presented to us, and thus we had a -- 

what you might call a new review by NIOSH to 

consider. 

In addition -- one of the main thrusts of our 

recommendation had to do, as you know, with the 

transparency issue and the issue of whether or 

not the dose reconstruction information could 

indeed be made public. Now the new document 

came along and indicated that there was a 

revised site profile and that the post-- 

information that the post-1962 information had 

been cleared for classification purposes. So 

on that basis the Chair was concerned about the 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

17 

probability that we would have a recommendation 

to the Secretary that was based on a different 

set of information and assumptions than NIOSH's 

recommendation to the Secretary. And remember, 

the Secretary uses both of those pieces of 

information to make a determination. Further, 

when our recommendation goes forward it starts 

the clock on when the Secretary must make the 

determination. 

So in light of that, the Board felt -- or the Chair 

felt it was important that we have a chance to 

evaluate the revised site profile and the issue 

of transparency for the post-1962 information, 

as well as the quality of that data, which -- 

some extent we had not fully looked into simply 

'cause the transparency issue seemed to be 

overriding. 

But in any event, that -- that was a decision that 

the Chair made. I'm aware that not all the 

Board members necessarily agreed with the 

Chair's decision on that, but we had not had an 

opportunity to actually meet and seek formal 

action one way or the other. 

Now in the meantime, since we knew that we had this 

new site profile, I -- I've discussed with Lew 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

18 

Wade, our Designated Federal Official, as to 

whether or not we could have our contractor 

move quickly to help us evaluate this new 

information so that we would have it by the 

time of our next meeting. So -- let's see, I 

think it might be appropriate if -- I'm just 

going to open this to comments from the Board, 

but I do wonder -- Lew, you might add anything 

to that in terms of subsequent action with our 

contractor. 

DR. WADE: I would -- this is Lew Wade. When Paul 

made the decision that he just spoke to you 

about, and I was aware of that decision, it did 

-- it occurred to me that the process would be 

best served by having the Board's contractor 

look at the Rev. 1 of the Iowa TBD, the 

document that -- that Paul just referred to. 

would have preferred that the Board ask SC&A to 

do that, but there really wasn't time to get 

the Board together, so I took it upon myself -- 

and I have that authority as the Technical 

Project Officer -- to ask SC&A to begin 

immediately to review the Iowa Technical Basis 

Document. I asked them to do that under the 

site profile review task of the contract that 

I 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

19 

was already in place. 

Also understanding that that review would likely 

require that SC&A individuals would have to 

review classified information as, you know, the 

nature of the classified information is 

critical to a number of decisions the Board 

will face, we expedited the activity to see 

that the two appropriate SC&A people were with 

classification, and they do have that -- that Q 

clearance now and when later we talk about 

events that will follow, we can talk a little 

bit about that. 

DR. ZIEMER: Let me interrupt here. We're getting 

some background noise of crying babies. I 

wonder if this -- does one of the members of 

the Board or the public have a child who's -- 

are others hearing this? 

 (Multiple affirmative responses) 

DR. ZIEMER: Could we ask whoever has the crying baby 

to please either mute their phone or remove 

themselves for now from the line? Thank you. 

Proceed. 

DR. WADE: Okay, sure. As I was saying, I took it 

upon myself to ask SC&A to commence such a 

review. I mean in no way was I attempting to 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

20 

usurp the Board's responsibility and its unique 

relationship with the contractor. I just felt 

due to the occurrence of events, the very tight 

time lines, that it was -- it was the right 

thing to do. Again, if the Board wishes, we 

can (unintelligible due to electronic 

interference on telephone line) as this is the 

first time that the Board is together. 

I was also in my mind looking at paralisms (sic) 

between our Mallinckrodt actions and processes 

as well as Iowa. And as you know, we'll talk 

more about it, we have a revised Mallinckrodt 

site profile and we will have -- for the April 

23, 24th and 25 meeting -- an SC&A review of 

that site profile. And I thought it would be 

in the best interests of this overall process 

to see paralism in terms of Iowa, the Iowa TBD 

and an SC&A review. So I took that action. 

Again, if the Board wishes to rescind that 

action, it can do so today. 

I would like to thank John Mauro and his very 

professional staff for their understanding and 

their willingness to work in a very expedited 

way to bring quality product to the Board to 

assist the Board's deliberation. 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

21 

Again I'd point out that what I asked SC&A to do, I 

asked them to do under the site profile review 

task. We don't really have an active SEC 

review task in place in the contract. We will 

talk about that today and hopefully have such a 

task in place very quickly, but I asked them to 

do this under the site profile review task. 

So again, those are the actions I took. I took them 

looking at a fair, balanced and open process. 

I do apologize for the action, particularly -- 

I know Board members feel that SC&A is, 

quote/unquote, their contractor. My action was 

not intended to -- to modify that belief. It 

was just to put something in place that I 

thought served what we were trying to do. 

That's all. 

DR. ZIEMER: Okay, let me open it to the Board 

members for comments or questions on this 

proceeding on the Iowa material. 

UNIDENTIFIED: Hello? 

MR. GIBSON: Dr. Ziemer, this is Mike Gibson. 

DR. ZIEMER: Yes, Mike. 

MR. GIBSON: I think this perhaps -- and you have the 

-- kind of the chronology of events in front of 

you it may be helpful to go over for the Board 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

22 

and the public and the government officials, 

the time -- kind of the time frame that went 

on, you know, in our February 9th meeting, you 

know, when we voted on the SEC petition -- 

DR. ZIEMER: Yes, I have some of that -- 

MR. GIBSON: -- when we determined that NIOSH -- 

DR. ZIEMER: -- Larry Elliott or -- or Lew Wade could 

help fill in, but we met on February 9th and 

that's when our action was taken. Correct? 

And then on February 14th it's my understanding 

that that was the date that DOE informed NIOSH 

that they, DOE, had made a determination on the 

revised site profile that -- basically that 

it's -- is considered to be unclassified. I 

think what happened technically was that DOE 

did not redact any material from that, so in 

essence it became fully unclassified. So that 

was on March 14th. 

I was informed of that I think on the 15th and that -

- and that there now was this revision of the 

site profile. Now keep in mind, a revision 

existed prior to our Board meeting, but none of 

us had seen it because of the classification 

issue. So the information that became 

available was that -- that this revised site 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

23 

profile now was available for the Board to 

view. And as a result of that, I wrote the 

letter on March 16th -- or dated March 16th, I 

began drafting it right away -- but on March 

16th I sent by e-mail the letter to all the 

members of the Board informing them of this 

information and also informing them that I've 

talked -- that I had talked with John Mauro of 

SC&A and with Lew Wade to see whether or not we 

could enlist SC&A's assistance in evaluating 

this revised site profile. So that -- that 

occurred on the 16th. 

Then let's see, what would -- what has occurred 

since, I guess? 

MR. GIBSON: Excuse me, Dr. Ziemer, so we -- we made 

our recommendation on the 9th of February. 

DR. ZIEMER: Right. 

MR. GIBSON: DOE informed NIOSH on February 14th, 

five days later --

DR. ZIEMER: Right. 

MR. GIBSON: -- and it wasn't till a month later that 

NIOSH approved the revised site profile 

(unintelligible) --

DR. ZIEMER: I believe that -- correct. I believe 

that there was a month time period after it had 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

24 

been released by DOE where NIOSH had, I 

presume, an internal review -- and Larry or Lew 

could speak to that -- and -- and then it was 

released on March 14th and on the 16th I 

started this process of -- be -- because in the 

meantime I had been working with material -- 

Jim Melius had assisted in drafting some 

wording, and I had Jim's wording and had 

drafted materials -- I actually had it ready to 

send out when this new material came and -- and 

then we made the contact immediately, I think 

probably that day, with SC&A to see whether 

they could assist in reviewing this in time for 

our upcoming Board meeting in -- in April. 

DR. WADE: Now I could talk a little bit -- and 

Larry, please correct me if I -- if I misspeak 

about the time frame from mid-February to midMarch. DOE approved the IAAP Rev. 1 -- it 

approves it in non-electronic form. An 

electronic version needed to be generated, 

including the reconstitution of the tables, and 

then that document went through an in-depth 

review by the OCAS and ORAU staff until it was 

finally cleared by the OCAS Associate Director 

of Science on March 14th. So the period from 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

25 

February 14th to March 14th was taken up in 

generating an electronic document and then 

getting that document in-depth reviewed. 

Larry, is that correct? 

MR. ELLIOTT: Yeah, Lew, that is -- you're very 

correct. That's correct. 

MR. GIBSON: This is Mike Gibson again. Just one 

concern I want to be placed on the record is 

that, you know, once the Board made a 

recommendation, there was information that 

subsequently or became available, and that in 

essence delayed what the Board's recommendation 

was to do. Whether or not it was to start a 

time clock sending a letter to the Secretary or 

-- I just believe that perhaps NIOSH should 

have informed our Chairman so that our Chairman 

could have informed us that -- and gave the 

Board the decision maybe not to go forward with 

the letter if that was appropriate due to this 

additional information, but not just to be left 

in the dark to where we get carbon'd in on 

letters from concerned Congressmen and 

Senators, which -- very appropriate on their 

part when (unintelligible) happened in public, 

it just -- to me, it -- I look at it personally 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

as it -- it -- it speaks to the credibility of 

the Board and we were left in the dark about 

that and I just -- I just think there can be a 

better process put in place that would keep 

this from happening in the future. 

DR. ZIEMER: I think your point is well taken, Mike, 

and -- this is Ziemer again. Your point is not 

only well taken, but we may need to consider 

some sort of a formal process as to how we 

handle such situations in the future, 

particularly where information emerges that -- 

that could have an impact on our 

recommendation. This -- in a sense, there's no 

real precedent one way or the other on this 

beyond simply trying to use best judgment and 

say what do we do now that we have this 

information. But --

DR. WADE: Might I ask, Liz, if you could briefly 

explain for us the process that begins when the 

Board submits a recommendation to the Secretary 

and the time clock that's started? Again, I 

think it's important that everyone understands 

that. 

MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: Certainly. This is Liz HomokiTitus with Health and Human Services. In 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

27 

accordance with the 2005 Defense Authorization 

bill, once the Advisory Board sends a 

recommendation to the Secretary, a 30-day clock 

is triggered and the Secretary has to 

(unintelligible) a final decision to Congress, 

assuming that the Advisory Board's 

recommendation was to add a class. If the 

Advisory Board's recommendation is to not add a 

class, then there is no process triggered. Is 

that enough or do you want (unintelligible) -- 

DR. WADE: Mike, I think your point is extremely 

well-made and -- and I just think as we 

consider what the right way to do things would 

be in the future, it's important to keep that 

clock in mind because it does potentially 

dictate certain outcomes that we want to be 

aware of. 

MR. GIBSON: This is Mike Gibson again. I'm well 

aware of the time constraints and the time 

limitations in the -- in the bill. There 

again, I think that should be -- and I don't -- 

speaking personally as a Board member, I'm not 

speaking for the Board, I don't want to send up 

something that is inadequate that may have an 

adverse effect on a SEC petition for potential 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

28 

claimants. But I just -- again, I think that 

there's just -- this is a Board decision to say 

this is something that needs to be transparent 

and we all need to take that -- be made aware 

of that, and you know, again, I don't -- I 

don't want to start a bogus time clock that 

could potentially impact something, but again, 

it was just -- it was just the way this -- this 

happened. It just really -- I want the Board 

to have credibility with the public 'cause we 

have a job to do that we were appointed by the 

President and I want that, you know, just as a 

body to be made aware and let us make the 

determination as to what goes on. 

DR. ZIEMER: Thank you, Mike. Let me ask if there's 

other comments or questions from other Board 

members on this issue or related to this. 

DR. MELIUS: This is Jim Melius. I would just add 

that we should add to our agenda for the next 

meeting the end of April that this be discussed 

and we work out these procedures. 

DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, we can -- we can certainly do 

that, and what -- it would seem to me that what 

is needed is some sort of process that 

stipulates in advance how we will handle -- 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

29 

particularly documents that emerge like this 

one did and that may seem to impact on a 

recommendation in some way. It may or may not 

impact, but we don't always know that in 

advance. 

DR. ANDERSON: This is Dr. Anderson. Paul, I mean 

the other issue is we weren't aware that there 

was a revised version when we went over the 

first one. It would seem that we probably 

ought to, if -- if something has been written 

and in review, it seems we ought to wait for 

that document before moving forward on an issue 

like this. 

DR. WADE: Well, just to make the record clear -- 

this is Lew Wade -- Henry, I think you were 

connected by phone, but Larry Elliott I think 

did make it very clear on the record that -- 

that this revised TBD was in the offing, so I 

think the Board was aware of that information. 

DR. ZIEMER: But at that time we had -- 

DR. ANDERSON: I may have missed that. 

DR. ZIEMER: -- no clue as to the outcome nor the 

timetable, did we? 

DR. WADE: No. 

MR. ELLIOTT: This is Larry Elliott. At the February 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

30 

9th meeting I wanted the Board and the public 

to understand that we did have a revised site 

profile developed and under review by the 

Department of Energy to determine if it was a 

classified document or not. And in that -- in 

that message, I thought I had also indicated 

that we had modified that site -- made that 

revision to the site profile based upon input 

that we got from workers at Iowa in a couple of 

town hall situations -- or one town hall 

meeting and then a worker outreach meeting. 

And we took those comments very seriously and 

started to address those back in -- we heard 

those comments in July of last year, June and 

July of last year, and then we started to 

address those comments in August and through -- 

on through October. Then we went into the 

secure setting with DOE and the records that 

were used -- the classified records that were 

used to come up with a revised site profile 

that we hoped was non-classified. So I'd just 

offer that, Henry. I think you perhaps missed 

part of that because of the phone connection. 

DR. WADE: This is Lew Wade again. I'd just like to 

say on the record I think the Board took 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

31 

appropriate action. I'm not judging the -- the 

-- you know, the act-- the -- the 

recommendation specifically, but I think the 

Board took appropriate action based upon 

information at hand, and then the events that 

Paul described took place. And I think Dr. 

Melius is correct, we need to anticipate such 

actions, but I think Mike is also correct that 

we can always do these things better. 

DR. ZIEMER: Other comments from Board members? 

 (No responses) 

DR. ZIEMER: Now at the upcoming meeting, what we 

will have then -- be this revision of the site 

profile. We will have -- we expect to have a 

review of that site profile from SC&A, and I 

believe all of the Board members at this 

juncture have already received from SC&A its 

preliminary set of questions. I don't know 

that those questions have been fully developed. 

I think SC&A was raising a number of issues 

with NIOSH and attempting to resolve those, but 

let me ask John Mauro if he would -- or one of 

the SC&A staff -- to comment on the status of 

that review process. 

DR. MAURO: Yes, this is John Mauro. We had prepared 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

32 

two memos which listed approximately 65 

questions and issues. That was delivered on 

March 22nd, and then another one on March 31st. 

And those issues were discussed at a three-hour 

conference call on Friday, this -- this past 

Friday. Simultaneously arrangements 

(unintelligible) ongoing dialogue regarding 

those. By the way, that was -- that conference 

call was recorded and a transcript will be made 

available. There were representatives of 

NIOSH, of course SC&A, and also representatives 

of the Board on that conference call. 

Of the approximate 60 or so questions, I would say 

perhaps 50 of the -- 50 percent of them, half 

of them, we were able to engage in a technical 

dialogue and get some clarification, and the 

other 50 percent had to be put on hold because 

they dealt with classified issues. As you can 

imagine, that was -- the conference call was 

not (unintelligible) conference call by any 

means, we just discussed non-classified 

information. 

This Tuesday two of our members and two members of 

the Board -- tomorrow -- will be going to 

Germantown to spend a day reviewing the 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

33 

classified documents. A team of -- in fact, we 

have arranged such that we have a team of 

people working on the classified information 

and a team of people working on the nonclassified information, which basically is a 

break point at around 1962 where one group is 

looking at all the information that really 

affects the pre-'62 time frame and another 

group is working on the unclassified 

information which primarily bears on the post-

'62 time frame. The document is -- our report 

is well under way. It is being written and we 

hope to have -- we're -- we're hopeful that 

we're able to accomplish what we'd like to 

accomplish tomorrow and -- and have access to 

the information we need. We are concerned that 

we may need more time to look at the classified 

documents, but we have every intention of 

putting out a report as complete as possible by 

a week from today for the Board and NIOSH to 

review in anticipation of the upcoming meeting 

in Iowa. 

DR. WADE: This is Lew Wade. Just to follow on, 

John, it's my understanding that there is a 

call also scheduled for 10:00 o'clock on 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

34 

Wednesday -- again for SC&A, NIOSH and Board 

members to engage in discussion on the types of 

issues that John mentioned -- after the 

classified review takes place on Tuesday. And 

again, that will be reported and a transcript 

made available of that call. Is that correct, 

John? 

DR. MAURO: That's correct. I apologize, I 

overlooked that. That's correct. 

DR. WADE: And if there does need to be subsequent 

interaction between NIOSH and SC&A, my 

commitment to the subcommittee that met 

recently was that we would let the Board know 

of such calls and we would keep a record of all 

such interactions. 

DR. ZIEMER: This is Ziemer again. Let me ask if 

there's other questions or comments on the Iowa 

or on the (unintelligible) process. As Lew's 

indicated earlier, the Board has the 

prerogative of requesting that the Chair 

proceed with the original recommendation. Or 

if there is no objection, we would proceed with 

this process that's gotten underway to review 

the revised document and then come up with a -- 

the final determination at the next meeting. 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

35 

But I think we would, you know, like to have 

some level of consensus as -- how we proceed on 

this Iowa petition and -- and (unintelligible). 

MR. ANDERSON: Dr. Ziemer, Bob Anderson. 

DR. ZIEMER: Yes? 

MR. ANDERSON: A point of order, should not the Board 

-- if it intends to stay an advisory board, 

should it not pass at this time a motion that -

- to hold the first motion so they're not a 

neutered board and go forward from that point? 

DR. ZIEMER: Well, I'm basically asking the Board 

what they wish to do, so... 

MR. ANDERSON: Thank you, Doctor. 

DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. 

MS. MUNN: This is Wanda Munn. 

DR. ZIEMER: Yes, Wanda. 

MS. MUNN: This is a thorny issue. I think it's 

difficult for everyone to deal with. I 

personally appreciate Dr. Wade's action to go 

ahead and get an additional review underway 

based on the action of the Department of Energy 

taken after our previous meeting. It certainly 

was confusing for me for a week or so as to 

(unintelligible) because we didn't have any way 

of fully understanding, even though I was 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

36 

vaguely aware of the statement that Dr. (sic) 

Elliott had given us earlier about the 

existence of the additional document that we 

had not been able to review because of 

classified issues. 

I don't know of any simple way to get around the 

difficulty that arises when these circumstances 

occur in this chronological order, and know it 

is -- if it's confusing for us, it must be 

doubly so for the public and for other people 

who have very closely-held interests in what 

we're doing here. I look forward for an 

opportunity for us to establish a better kind 

of process trying to second-guess the potential 

for these types of circumstances in the future. 

In the interim, my personal feeling is that 

we're on the right road. I think it's improper 

for us to continue with the recommendation that 

we made at our prior face-to-face meeting in 

light of the fact that we now have additional 

status of information that was not on the table 

at the time we had our earlier discussions. 

So I guess that's a long way of saying although it's 

confusing and I wish it had not happened that 

way, I believe that the process that's ongoing 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

37 

right now is (unintelligible). 

DR. ZIEMER: I didn't hear the -- Wanda, are you 

still there? 

MS. MUNN: Yes, I am. 

DR. ZIEMER: Okay. I didn't hear the end of that. 

There seemed to be some noise, but did you 

finish your statement? 

MS. MUNN: Yes, I did. It was long-winded, for which 

I apologize. It's very early on the west 

coast. 

DR. ZIEMER: Let me ask for other comments or any 

actions? 

UNIDENTIFIED: (Unintelligible) 

DR. ZIEMER: Who is it? 

 (No responses) 

DR. ZIEMER: Did somebody ask to make a motion? 

MS. MUNN: Someone made a comment about it, but I 

don't think anyone was asking to make a motion. 

DR. ZIEMER: Other Board members have comments? 

 (No responses) 

DR. ZIEMER: Do any of the Board members wish to make 

specific motion or motion regarding the process 

on the Iowa petition? 

MS. MUNN: I will move that we withhold further 

official action until we have had an 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

38 

opportunity to read the review of the nowavailable documentation. 

DR. ZIEMER: You've heard the motion from Ms. Munn. 

Is there a second? 

MR. PRESLEY: This is Bob Presley. I'll second. 

DR. ZIEMER: Any discussion? 

MR. GIBSON: This is Mike Gibson. I have a little 

bit of a discussion. 

DR. ZIEMER: Sure. 

MR. GIBSON: I -- I think we should wait until we 

have a chance for the Board or a working group 

or a subcommittee to get together and develop a 

task order for our contractor on what we want 

them to do review, not only on Iowa but also on 

the Mallinckrodt site profiles. You know, I 

understand that Dr. Wade has the authority to 

go ahead and ask them to review various things, 

but -- but again, I just want to point out that 

it's -- it's our duty to be auditors, so to 

speak, of what the government agencies are 

doing. And I think that we should be the ones 

to develop a task order to tell our contractor 

what we want them to review and find -- and 

give them our set of questions on what we want 

them to review so that we can independently 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

39 

develop Board consensus and give our opinion to 

NIOSH and to ultimately to the Secretary or 

whoever. 

DR. WADE: Mike, this is Lew Wade. I mean I would 

welcome that action. I would hope we could 

discuss that today, and you know, I would 

welcome the Board developing its questions for 

its contractor with regard to Iowa or 

Mallinckrodt or any action. 

The only thing I would remind you is that we're doing 

both of those reviews under the task that looks 

at site profile reviews. 

DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, SC&A is currently working under an 

existing task that the Board has approved. The 

tasks themselves are worded rather broadly so 

that we're able to ask SC&A to review the 

revised site profile under the existing site 

profile task that the Board has in fact 

approved. But we do have, you'll notice on the 

agenda, whether or not we should have a 

specific task for Special Exposure Cohort work, 

which would be more directly focused on Special 

Cohort petition review. So the comment's 

certainly in order and it may be, Mike, that we 

can even do that here today is to develop, at 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

40 

least conceptually, the wording that would -- 

or the scope of what the task for Special 

Cohort petition reviews would look like. 

DR. WADE: And this is Lew Wade again -- 

DR. ZIEMER: Because otherwise, you know -- well, in 

a sense -- are you asking or -- asking that we 

would not (unintelligible) -- 

MR. GIBSON: I'm sorry, Dr. Ziemer, I didn't hear 

you. 

DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, we're getting a lot of noise on 

the line. At the next -- if we wait till the 

next meeting, then all of this comes to a 

screeching halt. But if we're able to do 

something today, that would be helpful. 

DR. WADE: And just -- this is Lew Wade. Just by way 

of clarification, I think it would be 

appropriate for the Board, under the existing 

task -- that is site profile review as it 

relates to Iowa and then also Mallinckrodt -- 

to frame some questions it would like the 

contractor -- their contractor to consider in 

that review. I've alerted David Staudt to the 

fact that this discussion might take place. It 

would finally be up to the contracting office 

to determine if those questions are 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

41 

appropriate. But I think as Paul mentioned 

there is a great leeway available to the Board 

in framing such questions. 

The second issue is I think we need to move with some 

dispatch to get a task in place for SC&A to do 

the kind of things the Board would like it to 

do for Special Exposure Cohorts. And again, 

that's an agenda item for this call and if 

we're able to come to some agreement -- the 

Board is able to come to some agreement, it 

might be possible for us to have that task in 

place by the time we get together in -- at the 

end of April. 

MS. MUNN: This is Wanda Munn again. I don't think 

that Mike's comments are in any way at odds 

with the intent of the motion that I just made. 

I will comment that having been one of the 

Board members on line at the time the questions 

posed by John Mauro and his group were 

discussed, I find the questions that have 

already been posed with regard to the Iowa 

petitions are in-depth and quite broad. Having 

read them and been a part of the discussion, I 

individually am satisfied that scope is 

adequate, but I do agree that it's appropriate 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

42 

for the Board to have an opportunity to pose 

its own questions. 

DR. ZIEMER: Yes, and keep in mind -- just to 

emphasize, Mike -- we did have Board members 

involved in all of these interactions, albeit 

not the full Board because we couldn't do that 

without having an official meeting. We've had 

several Board members at each of these 

interactions to make sure that there's some 

Board input to -- to unrolling the process. 

The motion before us -- Ms. Munn's motion is to -- 

was it to withhold action on the Iowa petition 

until our next meeting? 

MS. MUNN: No, it was to --

DR. ZIEMER: What was the wording on that? 

MS. MUNN: -- to withhold any notice to the Secretary 

until we've had an opportunity to review. 

DR. ZIEMER: The Secretary until we've had further 

opportunity to review. 

DR. ANDERSON: I wonder if we couldn't just make that 

-- this is Dr. Anderson -- till the next 

meeting, Wanda? 

MS. MUNN: Yes, that was my intent --

DR. ANDERSON: Well, let's --

MS. MUNN: -- until our next face-to-face meeting. 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

43 

DR. ANDERSON: -- specifically put that in, that if -

- it'll just delay sending the letter until 

after the next meeting. 

MS. MUNN: Correct. 

DR. ZIEMER: Yes, I -- let's take that as a friendly 

amendment that the motion includes the intent 

to act at the next meeting. 

Is there further discussion pro or con on the motion? 

DR. ANDERSON: This is Andy again. I guess how I 

viewed it as that what we've done would stand 

unless at the next meeting, after we've been 

through the review, there's a need to revise it 

in some way. 

DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, the action --

DR. ANDERSON: (Unintelligible) --

DR. ZIEMER: -- this would not rescind the action. 

DR. ANDERSON: -- till we've changed it, and this 

time we haven't changed it, we're -- 

DR. ZIEMER: That's correct. 

DR. ANDERSON: -- delaying sending the letter. 

DR. ZIEMER: That's correct. Further discussion, pro 

or con? 

 (No responses) 

DR. ZIEMER: Does anyone wish to speak against the 

motion? Or are the Board members ready to act 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

44 

on Ms. Munn's motion? 

 (No responses) 

DR. ZIEMER: I'll take the silence to -- they're 

either ready to vote or all asleep. Right? We 

appreciate -- Wanda Munn is -- what is it, 5:30 

in the morning out there or -- 

MS. MUNN: Uh-huh. 

DR. ZIEMER: -- 6:30 in the morning or something? 

Anyway -- okay, let me call for a vote on this 

motion. 

All in favor of -- oh, we'll have to do it by roll 

call. Cori --

MS. HOMER: Yes. 

DR. ZIEMER: -- take the roll call here, starting 

alphabetically. 

MS. HOMER: Dr. Anderson? 

DR. ANDERSON: Yes. 

MS. HOMER: Dr. DeHart? 

DR. DEHART: Yes. 

MS. HOMER: Mr. Espinosa? 

MR. ESPINOSA: Yes. 

MS. HOMER: Mr. Gibson? Mr. --

MR. GIBSON: I'll abstain. 

MS. HOMER: -- Gibson? I'm sorry? 

MR. GIBSON: I'll abstain. 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

45 

MS. HOMER: Okay. Mr. Griffon? 

MR. GRIFFON: Yes. 

MS. HOMER: Dr. Melius? 

DR. MELIUS: I -- I abstain. 

MS. HOMER: Ms. Munn? 

MS. MUNN: Yes. 

MS. HOMER: Dr. -- or Leon Owens, Mr. Owens? 

 (No responses) 

MS. HOMER: He's still not in attendance. Mr. 

Presley? Mr. Presley? 

 (No responses) 

DR. ZIEMER: Did we lose Robert? 

MS. HOMER: We may have lost him. 

MR. PRESLEY: Yes. 

MS. HOMER: Okay. Dr. Roessler? 

DR. ROESSLER: Yes. 

MS. HOMER: Dr. Ziemer? 

DR. ZIEMER: Yes. 

MS. HOMER: Okay, the -- the ayes have it. 

DR. ZIEMER: The motion carries, and we will then 

continue at the next meeting to have the 

opportunity to have the input on the -- on the 

revised document, the input from our 

contractor, and then make a determination as to 

whether or not that in any way affects the 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

46 

previous action of the -- of the Board. 

DR. WADE: Dr. Ziemer, this is Lew Wade. I guess a 

question and then a comment. Do I assume by 

this motion that it is appropriate to allow 

SC&A to continue its work as -- as they 

started? And then my comment is I do think it 

would be appropriate for the Board to have some 

discussion of whether or not there are 

particular questions they would like to pose to 

SC&A on this matter. Ms. Munn defines the 

process as acceptable to her, from her point of 

view, as it's unfolding. If that's the case, I 

would just like to hear some discussion of 

that. 

MS. MUNN: Wanda. I had thought I had incorporated 

in the motion that we'd proceed with the 

activities that are underway. If I failed to 

incorporate that, that was my intent. 

DR. WADE: Oh, no. Okay. Thank you. 

DR. ZIEMER: Well, perhaps it would be useful -- I 

don't know whether that was understood by 

everyone. I think the -- the thrust of the 

vote may have been directed more toward whether 

or not to withhold the action until the next 

meeting --
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

47 

MS. MUNN: Yes --

DR. ZIEMER: -- but it would be helpful to get some 

clarity on whether we should have the 

contractor proceed with the review. 

MR. PRESLEY: Bob Presley, I --

DR. ZIEMER: And -- and to frame specific issues, if 

there are additional -- and particularly beyond 

the set of questions which were developed by 

the contractor and with some input from Board 

members. I believe -- believe Mark Griffon and 

Wanda and Robert were -- were all involved in 

that, were you not? 

MR. PRESLEY: (Unintelligible) 

MS. MUNN: (Unintelligible) 

MR. GRIFFON: I wasn't on that call. This is Mark 

Griffon. 

DR. ZIEMER: I'm sorry? 

MR. GRIFFON: I wasn't able to get on that call. 

DR. ZIEMER: You weren't on that call. 

MS. MUNN: I was there. 

MR. PRESLEY: This is Bob Presley. I was there. 

DR. ZIEMER: Yes. So --

MR. PRESLEY: (Unintelligible) --

DR. ZIEMER: -- what's the Board's pleasure on the 

issue --
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

48 

MR. PRESLEY: -- motion (unintelligible) that effect. 

DR. ZIEMER: Say it again. 

MR. PRESLEY: Would you like to have a motion to that 

effect? 

DR. ZIEMER: That would be in order. 

MR. PRESLEY: I'll go ahead and make that motion that 

we go ahead and let SC&A continue their work. 

DR. ZIEMER: Motion to (unintelligible) SC&A to 

continue their review of the revised Iowa 

petition as previously outlined? 

MR. PRESLEY: That's correct. 

DR. ROESSLER: I second it. 

DR. ZIEMER: Seconded by Dr. Roessler. 

MR. ELLIOTT: Excuse me, Paul, this is Larry Elliott. 

I -- you just said petition and I think you 

wanted to say site profile. 

DR. ZIEMER: I'm talking about the -- not the 

petition but the Technical Basis Document 

revision, which is basically the site profile 

revision. Be TBA Rev. 1, I guess, is it -- or 

Rev. 0? What's the correct -- 

MR. ELLIOTT: Rev. 1, this is Larry Elliott. Rev. 1. 

DR. ZIEMER: TBA Rev. 1 for Iowa. So that would be 

the motion. It's been seconded. Is there 

discussion? 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

49 

MR. GIBSON: This is Mike Gibson again. I -- you 

know, I do not want to slow down any of this 

work because I think this process needs to move 

ahead, I think, so that we can hopefully get 

these claimants compensated that deserve 

compensation. 

UNIDENTIFIED: (Unintelligible) of the IAAP and I'm 

with the ammunition plant and -- 

DR. ZIEMER: I'm sorry? 

UNIDENTIFIED: -- (unintelligible). 

DR. ZIEMER: We have a Board discussion ensuing. 

Please -- go ahead, Mike. 

MR. GIBSON: Again, I -- I don't want to delay the 

process, to slow it down in any way because I 

believe we need to get this done, we need to do 

our duty so we can see the people get 

compensated that deserve compensation. 

However, I -- SC&A continuing to spend the 

resources that we have allotted to -- that 

NIOSH has allotted to them without the Board 

giving them direction what we want them to do -

- I'm just concerned about it eating up the 

funds before we have the proper input what we 

want them to do based on Shelby Hallmark's 

comments (unintelligible) in previous meetings, 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

50 

public meeting, seeming to indicate that funds 

are limited for our contractor, so if 

(unintelligible) --

DR. WADE: If I could -- if I could clari-- this is 

Lew Wade --

MR. GIBSON: -- (unintelligible) concerns me that, 

you know, given that -- I won't call it a 

veiled threat, but it -- but in his comments 

that there may be limited funds, I'm just 

concerned that we have the input on what our 

contractor does. 

DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, good -- good point, Mike. Lew, 

can you address that? 

DR. WADE: When I -- Mike, your point is excellent. 

When I discussed this with Paul and I took my 

unilateral action, I told Paul that I would see 

that additional funds were made available to 

cover this action as I understood it not to 

have been mandated by the Board. So I tried to 

-- to assure Paul that that would take place, 

and I intend to -- to live true to that. But 

your point is well made. Again, I -- I don't 

think that the action that I took would limit 

the Board's prerogatives with regard to funds. 

MS. MUNN: This is Wanda. I, too, have 
1 

2 -- 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

51 

(unintelligible) with respect (unintelligible) 

DR. ROESSLER: It's hard to hear Wanda. 

DR. ZIEMER: Can you speak a little louder, Wanda? 

MS. MUNN: Yes, I have considerable concern about the 

amount of time that we have available to us 

financially in order to get these things done. 

And I probably would have greater concern about 

the process that's underway had I not been 

privy to the discussions (unintelligible) 

questions that our contractor (unintelligible). 

I think the inquiry is going the right way, 

Mike, but I certainly agree with you that the 

issue of how much time we can actually expect 

our contractor to give under the circum-- or 

under the contracting circumstances that we 

have is a key issue. But if we do not address 

-- and I'm not at all sure that we can address 

it on this phone call. I'm not sure we have 

information to address it. But certainly it 

appears to me that this is (unintelligible) 

item for discussion at our meeting. 

DR. ZIEMER: Thank you, Wanda. Let me -- other Board 

members have input -- remember, we have a 

motion on the floor now which -- a motion to 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

52 

allow SC&A to continue their review of the -- 

of Rev. 1 of the Iowa Technical Basis Document. 

MR. ESPINOSA: (Unintelligible) Espinosa. 

DR. ZIEMER: Okay, Rich Espinosa. 

MR. ESPINOSA: I'm in agreement with what 

(unintelligible) is saying and do you know -- 

I'm worried about the funding, too, so is there 

a Federal official or somebody from the 

(unintelligible) comment? 

DR. ZIEMER: Well, Lew's comment. I don't know if 

there's any others --

UNIDENTIFIED: (Unintelligible) 

DR. ZIEMER: I'm sorry? 

UNIDENTIFIED: (Unintelligible) 

MS. MUNN: There's background conversation. 

DR. ZIEMER: Background conversation. 

DR. WADE: But I will take it as my responsibility to 

see that those funds are made available. 

DR. ZIEMER: That may be the best that he can do for 

you today, Rich. 

DR. ANDERSON: But this'll be for the full review? 

DR. ZIEMER: This is for the Iowa. Right? 

DR. ANDERSON: Yeah, but for this -- this new 

activity. 

DR. ZIEMER: Yes. 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

53 

DR. WADE: Right. 

DR. ANDERSON: Because what I -- this is Andy, I -- 

what I don't want to do is if we approve moving 

forward now, it switches back to our contract 

once we've suggested it move forward versus if 

we do that. As long as we're held harmless to 

the rest of the task that we've already 

decided, then it's worth moving forward. 

DR. WADE: That is my intention. 

DR. ANDERSON: Okay. 

DR. ZIEMER: Other comments or questions? 

MR. PRESLEY: This is Bob Presley. My comment is 

we've gone this far, we've got two more weeks 

before we go into our full open committee 

meeting. It would be a shame to stop their 

work now for two weeks and then have them pick 

it back up again. 

DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Thank you, Bob. Other comments 

or questions? Anyone speaking against the 

motion? I think it's important Board members, 

one way or the other -- if you feel it's not 

the way to go, let us -- let us hear from you. 

Are you ready to vote on this motion? 

MR. GRIFFON: Paul, this is Mark Griffon. 

DR. ZIEMER: Mark? Thank you. 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

54 

MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, I -- I just have a ques-- I mean 

just -- just res-- sort of responding to what 

Bob just said, that we have two weeks, and -- 

and I -- since the subcommittee meeting we had 

in Cincinnati I'm still not sure that -- that 

we're allowing ourselves enough time here to 

consider this -- this -- or reconsider, I 

guess, this Iowa petition. You know, we're -- 

I'm jumping on a plane tonight to go to 

Washington to see some classified data, but any 

notes we take or any -- any discussions we have 

certainly have to go through a declassification 

process. We can't discuss them outside the 

classified areas. But --

DR. ZIEMER: (Unintelligible) --

MR. GRIFFON: -- I also understand (unintelligible) -

-

DR. ZIEMER: -- even if we move ahead it doesn't 

guarantee that we'll have everything we need by 

our next meeting, does it? 

MR. GRIFFON: That's right. That's right. And I'm 

not saying that we should -- you know, I'm not 

saying that we shouldn't continue to make -- to 

move ahead and make progress on this. But I'm 

just pointing out that, you know, to rush a 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

55 

decision on this would -- would be just another 

mistake in this, I think, so let -- we should 

keep that in mind. 

DR. ZIEMER: Well, one thing it seems to me that if 

we -- if we do halt it at this point, we 

definitely won't be in a position to make a 

decision next time. It seems to me if we 

continue, we may be in a position to make a 

decision, but I -- I suspect that we -- that 

there's also the possibility that -- 

particularly those of you with -- on the Board 

with Q clearance who are reviewing this may 

believe that we have not fully pursued 

everything that needs to be pursued. 

MR. PRESLEY: It may go back the other way, that once 

we see ev-- this is Bob Presley. 

DR. ZIEMER: Sure. 

MR. PRESLEY: Once we see everything in Washington, 

we can go back and report to the Board that 

everything is all right. 

DR. ZIEMER: Yes. Okay, further comment? 

 (No responses) 

DR. ZIEMER: Are you ready to vote on this motion? 

Now this does not preclude us from adding yet 

today additional input to S-- if -- if the 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

56 

motion passes, to have additional input to 

SC&A. And Mike, there's specific things, 

either on Iowa or in general terms of the 

review process, those can certainly be added 

immediately, if needed. 

Let's proceed to vote at this point then. All in 

favor of the motion to allow SC&A to continue 

the review of the Iowa Technical Basis Document 

Rev. 1 --

MS. HOMER: Dr. Ziemer, would you prefer that I take 

a roll vote? 

DR. ZIEMER: Yes, take a roll call vote again. We'll 

have to do it that way. 

MS. HOMER: Okay. 

DR. ZIEMER: Please say aye when your name is called, 

or no or (unintelligible). 

UNIDENTIFIED: Repeat the motion again. 

DR. ZIEMER: Motion is to allow the Board's 

contractor, SC&A, to continue with their review 

of the Iowa Technical Basis Document, Rev. 1. 

And parenthetically I'll add with the intent of 

providing the Board some input for our decision 

on -- at our next meeting. 

DR. ROESSLER: But what does that mean? 

DR. ZIEMER: The motion allows the contractor to 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

57 

continue reviewing the revised Technical Basis 

Document for -- rather than stop work on it. 

Okay? All in favor, aye? 

 (No responses) 

DR. ZIEMER: Oh, Cori's going to take the roll call 

here. Cori? 

MS. HOMER: Okay. Dr. Anderson? 

DR. ANDERSON: Aye. 

MS. HOMER: Dr. DeHart? 

DR. DEHART: Aye. 

MS. HOMER: Mr. Espinosa? 

MR. ESPINOSA: Aye. 

MS. HOMER: Mr. Gibson? 

MR. GIBSON: Abstain. 

MS. HOMER: Mr. Griffon? 

MR. GRIFFON: Aye. 

MS. HOMER: Dr. Melius? 

DR. MELIUS: Yes. 

MS. HOMER: Ms. Munn? 

MS. MUNN: Yes. 

MS. HOMER: Mr. Owens? 

 (No response) 

MS. HOMER: Mr. Presley? 

MR. PRESLEY: Yes. 

MS. HOMER: Dr. Roessler? 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

58 

DR. ROESSLER: Yes. 

MS. HOMER: Dr. Ziemer? 

DR. ZIEMER: Yes. The motion carries and our 

contractor will continue work on this document. 

Now let me ask if any of the Board members wish to 

add any particular instructions on the Iowa 

review? You have the questions that were 

generated by the contractor already, with some 

input from Board members, and are -- are there 

any specific instructions that anyone wishes to 

add to this or to frame for the contractor? 

 (No responses) 

DR. ZIEMER: We will later in the meeting here this 

morning come back to the general issue of 

Special Exposure Cohort task for our 

contractor, so we can certainly frame it out in 

that context, as well. Okay. 

MR. GIBSON: Dr. Ziemer, this is Mike Gibson. 

DR. ZIEMER: Mike? 

MR. GIBSON: Perhaps one question that I would like 

our contractor or NIOSH to -- to ask. Is there 

any additional upcoming information that's 

going to be put out at the last minute, so to 

speak, so that we won't go through this again? 

Is there any information that is potentially 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

59 

known to someone or -- whether it's NIOSH or 

the Department of Energy or anyone else, I 

don't know if there's anyone from the 

Department of Energy on line, but -- 

DR. ZIEMER: You're really asking about the 

completeness of the material that the Board 

will have on which to make its decision, I 

think. Right, Mike? 

MR. GIBSON: Well, I'm asking that once we're 

presented with information to make a decision 

or reconsider our decision, is there all of a 

sudden, two or three days later or a day later 

down the road, some additional information's 

going to be put out that will again throw us 

right back in this same cycle. 

DR. WADE: This is Lew Wade. I can speak to that and 

then Larry, possibly. What I think we'll have 

before us -- what you'll have before you is the 

revision to the Technical Basis Document. You 

will have a review by SC&A on that document. 

You've recently been provided a supplement by 

NIOSH to the review of the SEC petition. I 

assume at the meeting there'll be an 

opportunity for petitioners to -- to make 

comment, and I don't know what they might say, 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

60 

but I think at this point in time that 

represents all the information that we have any 

reason to believe would be available. 

Larry, anything in addition that you can think of? 

MR. ELLIOTT: Thanks, Lew. No, I -- this is Larry 

Elliott. I do not envision there will be any 

additional information beyond that point. 

We've covered what will be available, what will 

be prepared and provided for the Board's 

deliberation, and I believe that will be all 

that we have to submit. 

MR. GIBSON: Okay. This is Mike Gibson again, and I 

appreciate that. I would again like to ask, is 

there anyone from the Department of Energy on 

this call that could make a comment as to 

additional information that may be brought out 

days or weeks after we make our next move so 

that we don't go through this cycle again? 

MR. ELLIOTT: I don't -- Larry Elliott again. I 

don't believe we heard anyone from DOE join 

this call, but if there is someone on from DOE, 

now is the time to recognize that person. 

DR. ZIEMER: Larry, I -- I underst-- I -- it is my 

understanding there aren't any other documents 

under review by DOE that you have submitted, 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

61 

are there? 

MR. ELLIOTT: No, that is correct, Dr. -- 

DR. ZIEMER: You have everything back from DOE that 

was submitted for their review on the Iowa 

document. 

MR. ELLIOTT: That's correct, we have everything 

back. There are no other documents in front of 

DOE that we've put there. 

DR. ZIEMER: Thank you very much. 

MR. PRESLEY: Hey, Paul, this is Bob Presley -- 

DR. ZIEMER: Yes, Bob? 

MR. PRESLEY: -- I (unintelligible) --

DR. ZIEMER: Yes? 

MR. PRESLEY: About information showing up, I think 

this is an ongoing problem that we're going to 

have down the road, especially with the 

facilities that have been closed down. They 

can come up with a site profile and then 

somewhere down the road somebody can come up 

with some pertinent information which might 

change things. This is -- this is 

unfortunately going to be a problem we're going 

to have. 

DR. ZIEMER: Well, there obviously are no guarantees. 

I think Mike's concern is that the -- the 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

62 

existence and review of Rev. 1 was known and I 

think the record will probably show that the 

Board was made aware of it, but probably we 

were not quite prepared for the fact that it 

would be, in essence, unclassified and 

therefore available in a very different way 

than we had anticipated. But certainly if 

there's documents that come to light later that 

impact on any decision, pro or con, they would 

have to be made available at the point when 

they became -- but we don't know of anything. 

And Mike is really asking do we know of other 

material that's critical in our decision-making 

that we're not being told about. 

MR. GIBSON: This is Mike Gibson again. It just -- I 

guess to go one step further, and if it would 

be in order at this point, Dr. Ziemer -- 

DR. ZIEMER: Yes. 

MR. GIBSON: -- I would like to make a motion that 

the Board draft an apology to the workers and 

survivors and claimants at Iowa and 

Mallinckrodt for this -- this turn of events 

about this information that has -- could 

potentially delay or change our -- our 

recommendation because we were not -- due to 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

63 

circumstances we were not timely notified of 

everything and, you know, I think they got 

their hopes up and -- and this turn of events 

has delayed things and I would just like to 

make a motion that we -- the Board issue some 

sort of apology at our next meeting to the 

claimants of Iowa and Mallinckrodt for this 

turn of events. 

DR. ZIEMER: Your motion is in order. I would 

suggest that it be done in two parts, the Iowa 

and Mallinckrodt. The Mallinckrodt has gone 

forward, as prescribed at our last meeting. 

And after we discuss Mallinckrodt, if you have 

a similar motion, we can certainly make it, 

Mike. But would you be agreeable to 

restricting this motion to the Iowa? 

MR. GIBSON: Yes, I would. 

DR. ZIEMER: Is there a second? 

MR. ESPINOSA: I'll second that, Paul. 

DR. ZIEMER: I'm sorry? 

MR. ESPINOSA: This is Rich Espinosa. I'll second 

that motion. 

DR. ZIEMER: Okay, Rich Espinosa is seconding the 

motion. Before I ask for discussion, Mike, as 

I understand the motion, we could actually have 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

64 

a working group draft the wording -- if it 

passed, draft the wording and have it available 

for formal action at our next meeting? 

MR. GIBSON: Yeah. 

DR. ZIEMER: Would that be your intent? 

MR. GIBSON: Yes. 

DR. ZIEMER: So that everyone can have a chance to 

see the wording of the apology at that point. 

MR. GIBSON: I'm sorry, there was some background 

noise. I didn't hear all that you said, Paul. 

DR. ZIEMER: So that the formal action on the actual 

wording could be taken at the meeting. Is that 

(unintelligible)? 

MR. GIBSON: It would be the intent of my motion -- 

that would be fine, as long as that wording can 

be worked out and the apology be made at our 

next meeting. 

DR. ZIEMER: Okay. You've heard the motion, the 

second. Are there -- is there any discussion, 

pro or con? 

MS. MUNN: This is Wanda. I have a request to make 

of the people who are on the line, then a 

comment with respect to the motion. Will the 

people on the line who are carrying on other 

conversations or who have other people in the 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

65 

room with them please put their phone on mute. 

It really is distracting and it makes it almost 

impossible for all the members of the Board to 

hear the details of the conversations that are 

going on when other conversations are taking 

place in the background. We can hear you quite 

well. 

DR. ZIEMER: Thank you, Wanda. That's an appropriate 

request. 

MS. MUNN: With respect --

DR. ZIEMER: Go on with your comment. 

MS. MUNN: With respect to a motion that's before us, 

I find this a difficult motion for a simple 

reason. I don't believe that the Board has 

done anything improper, and therefore it's 

difficult for me to see -- I can understand why 

claimants would be concerned about this. 

Certainly if I were a claimant I would be 

concerned about it, also. However, the Board 

has acted in good faith and I think 

appropriately based on the information that we 

had at hand. To write up a note of explanation 

I would have no objection to, but to apologize 

for a circumstance which truly was -- was not 

ill-intentioned nor was it in any way to be 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

66 

laid -- blame to be associated with the Board's 

action, it concerns me. I guess -- do you 

understand what I'm saying, Mike? I don't --

I'm not in opposition to the concept, it's just 

that I -- I don't feel the Board has done 

anything improper. 

MR. GIBSON: Well --

DR. ZIEMER: Thank you, Wanda. Others --

MR. GIBSON: -- (unintelligible) --

DR. ZIEMER: -- on this, pro or con? 

MR. GIBSON: Wanda, I understand what you're saying, 

and I don't -- I don't think we have done 

anything improper, either. However, I think -- 

I think that the agencies that are supposed to 

be providing us with information put us in a 

bad light in the public's eye, and therefore I 

would just like it -- let it be known to them 

so that we don't lose credibility with the 

public, that -- yes, we were acting on the best 

information we had. But I think that the 

agencies that are responsible for providing us 

with information to review or audit could do a 

better job. So I guess it's more of -- 

DR. WADE: This is Lew Wade. I mean I think your 

last comment, Mike, needs to be considered and 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

67 

debated possibly. I mean I certainly let it 

stand on the record, but I wouldn't let it go 

without commenting. But please continue. 

DR. ZIEMER: Other comments pro or con from Board 

members? 

 (No responses) 

DR. ZIEMER: Anyone else speaking for the motion? 

 (No responses) 

DR. ZIEMER: Anyone speaking against the motion? 

MS. MUNN: This is Wanda. I -- again, I don't want 

to speak against the motion because I think 

it's well-intentioned and I agree with the 

intention. I am opposed to -- 

And by the way, folks on the line, you're still being 

heard. 

I do wish that we could -- I guess my objection is 

solely around the word "apology". I guess I 

would have no objection to a letter of 

explanation and concern going -- being issued. 

But I do object to the word "apology". 

MR. GIBSON: This is Mike. 

DR. ZIEMER: Mike, go ahead. 

MR. GIBSON: Paul, if I can amend my motion to say we 

regret... 

MS. MUNN: The circumstances, yeah. 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

68 

DR. ZIEMER: Mike, you're suggesting that -- you 

describe what -- the action as drafting a 

letter of regret or -- is that what you said? 

MR. GIBSON: Yeah, I'd just change from apology to we 

regret that the action we'd taken -- the 

actions we've taken, then the turn of events 

and timeliness of the turn of events -- 

MS. MUNN: (Unintelligible) --

MR. GIBSON: -- have delayed this --

DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, I don't think we need to draft 

this letter today. 

MR. GIBSON: Fine, I'm just trying to -- 

DR. ZIEMER: What we would be doing would be to -- if 

the motion passes, it would be the intent of 

the Chair to ask Mike and maybe one other 

person to work with Mike to -- as a -- as a -- 

in essence, a working group to develop the 

wording for our next meeting. Then we can vote 

it up or down. But it's basically a motion 

that -- that's a draft letter of regret or 

explanation or -- to be drafted to the Iowa 

workers -- or it'd basically be to the 

petitioners, I suppose. Does that frame the 

motion properly, Mike, in -- 

MR. GIBSON: Yes, yes, it does. 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

69 

DR. ZIEMER: Without wording it at this point? 

MR. GIBSON: Yes. 

MS. MUNN: That's fine for me. 

DR. ZIEMER: Board members, are you ready to vote on 

Mike Gibson's motion? Okay, all in favor will 

say aye when the roll is called. 

MS. HOMER: Dr. Anderson? 

DR. ANDERSON: Aye. 

MS. HOMER: Dr. DeHart? 

DR. DEHART: Aye. 

MS. HOMER: Mr. Espinosa? 

MR. ESPINOSA: Aye. 

MS. HOMER: Mr. Gibson? 

MR. GIBSON: Aye. 

MS. HOMER: Mr. Griffon? 

MR. GRIFFON: Aye. 

MS. HOMER: Dr. Melius? 

DR. MELIUS: Aye. 

MS. HOMER: Ms. Munn? 

MS. MUNN: Aye. 

MS. HOMER: Mr. Presley? 

MR. PRESLEY: Yes. 

MS. HOMER: Dr. Roessler? 

DR. ROESSLER: Aye. 

MS. HOMER: Mr. Owens? I might have 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

70 

(unintelligible). Dr. Ziemer? 

DR. ZIEMER: Aye. The motion carries. Mike, if you 

would take the lead on drafting that, and who 

volunteers to help Mike with this? Any 

volunteer? Let's ask for one person 

(unintelligible) this. 

MR. ESPINOSA: Dr. Ziemer, Richard Espinosa. Since I 

seconded, I'll help Mike with this. 

DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. Mike, if you would exchange 

drafts with Rich before our next meeting and 

then come to the Board with your proposed 

letter and we'll have it on the agenda for 

action. 

Okay. We -- let me ask if there's any other items 

relating to Iowa petition that Board members 

wish to raise before we turn to Mallinckrodt -- 

or on the SC&A work? 

 (No responses) 

DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Now let's review the status of 

Mallinckrodt. The Mallinckrodt piece, the 

Chair prepared the letter to the Secretary and 

sent it through the Director of NIOSH, together 

with all of the supporting documents, which 

included the transcript of the Board's 

discussion on Mallinckrodt, the public comments 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 -- 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

71 

on Mallinckrodt, the petition itself, the NIOSH 

review of the petition -- there may have been 

some other pieces, but it was a packet of 

everything. That I sent on to the Director of 

NIOSH -- I'm looking to see if I have the exact 

date here. I may not have my copy before me. 

Lew, do you have a record of that -- when that 

DR. WADE: In fact I don't in front of me, Paul. 

DR. ZIEMER: It was several weeks ago, I think. And 

Lew, maybe you can pick up and tell us where 

that package is in terms of NIOSH. 

DR. WADE: The package has made its way through the 

NIOSH director and is with the Secretary. I am 

not aware at this moment of any action that the 

Secretary has taken. If anyone on the line has 

that knowledge, please -- but the package is 

with the Secretary. 

MS. BROCK: This is Denise Brock. Can I comment 

then? 

DR. WADE: Sure. 

MS. BROCK: Dr. Wade, I believe that it went to the 

Secretary or (unintelligible) Secretary's desk 

on the 15th of March, and I just spoke with 

somebody from Senator Bond's office within the 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

72 

last hour or so and I will be hearing something 

probably very soon, maybe before our 

conversation has ended. 

DR. WADE: Okay. I would expect action very quickly, 

but I'm not aware of any action having taken -- 

been taken by the Secretary. 

MS. BROCK: That is my understanding, too, Dr. Wade. 

DR. WADE: Thank you. 

DR. ZIEMER: You may recall, Board members, in the 

case of Mallinckrodt the recommendation was to 

-- you recommend Special Cohort status to two 

of the -- of the subsets of the Mallinckrodt 

and to withhold judgment on the third one until 

we had opportunity both to review the -- again, 

there was a revised document and some other 

documents that surfaced at the time of our last 

meeting. And so the action included the 

statement that it was the Board's intent to 

take action on that third group -- and I'm 

using the word "third group" because I don't 

have right before me the exact description of 

that group, but does everybody know what I mean 

by the third group? It's defined by -- by 

years, and --

DR. WADE: Larry, is it 1948 to 1957, is that the... 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

73 

MS. BROCK: It's '49 to '57, excuse me. 

DR. ZIEMER: I believe -- yeah, '49 sounds correct. 

In any event, we have the -- the other 

documents now have been provided to the Board 

members. I believe you have those and we have 

SEC (sic) also doing some reviewing on that, 

and let's see, who can give us an update on 

where SEC (sic) is on the Mallinckrodt -- 

DR. WADE: Let me define the situation overall. We -

- the Board should now be in possession of a 

revision to the Iowa -- excuse me, to the 

Mallinckrodt downtown site profile. 

DR. ZIEMER: Right. 

DR. WADE: If you recall, SC&A has agreed to provide 

the Board its review of that revised site 

profile one week before the next Board meeting. 

The Board should also be in possession of a 

supplement that was prepared by NIOSH to the 

SEC petition review. 

John Mauro, are we still operating on the assumption 

that the Board will see the SC&A work product a 

week before its next meeting? 

DR. MAURO: We delivered on April 5th a draft work 

product that we were hoping to have an 

opportunity to discuss with NIOSH and the 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

74 

Board. So there is something -- a document 

that is fairly complete. Work is continuing, 

more is being done, but we were hoping to have 

an opportunity to discuss our draft report as 

we -- as the review cy-- in accordance with the 

review cycle. We're trying to keep in line 

with the review cycle where we'll prepare a 

draft and have an opportunity to be discussed 

with NIOSH and the Board for factual accuracy 

review. And so our hope is that we would get 

some feedback and opportunity for dialogue on 

the draft that we submitted, and then we will 

submit a final version shortly thereafter. 

DR. WADE: I would imagine those discussions would 

take place later this week, although I don't 

think they've been formally scheduled. But 

we'll notify the Board of that schedule. 

DR. NETON: This is Jim Neton from NIOSH. We have 

received the draft from SC&A and we're going 

over it. We intend to get with them as soon as 

possible, but that may not be until very early 

next week -- like Monday. There's a key person 

from ORAU who is out of the office until 

Thursday this week. But as we discussed at the 

subcommittee meeting, we're going to constrain 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

75 

our discussion I believe until -- to the '49 to 

'57 time period 'cause that is the issue at 

hand in the upcoming Board meeting. 

DR. ZIEMER: Right. 

DR. NETON: Okay. 

DR. MAKHIJANI: This is Arjun Makhijani. Could I ask 

a question about the schedule? A week from now 

is the 18th, and if we don't hear from NIOSH 

until the 18th, then of course we can't 

incorporate comments, so it will be very 

difficult -- and deliver a report to the Board 

on the 18th. 

DR. WADE: I mean let us work to have that meeting 

take place at its earliest possible date. 

DR. ZIEMER: Well, the goal is to have something to 

the Board in time for the next meeting because 

the Board has indicated its intent to make a 

decision on that portion of the Mallinckrodt 

worker group, so --

MR. HORGAN: Mr. Chairman, this is Tom Horgan from 

Senator Bond's office. I'm sorry to cut you 

off there, but I just want to say that -- 

that's really not an unreasonable request, I 

don't think, and whatever can be done to 

accommodate the folks at Sanford Cohen -- I 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

76 

know the Board and a lot of stakeholders would 

be interested in getting that report. Thanks. 

DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. Thank you for your comment. 

So the intent would be to have that for us in time 

for the Board meeting so that we have full 

information when action is taken. 

Now I want to give Mike the opportunity -- Mike, when 

you originally talked about the letter to Iowa, 

you also mentioned Mallinckrodt. I just wanted 

to make sure you were aware that, with respect 

to Mallinckrodt, everything has proceeded as 

the Board outlined at its last meeting. So I'm 

wondering if -- do you still feel there's an 

additional explanation needed at this point in 

the Mallinckrodt case since we have proceeded -

- the Secretary of Health and Human Services 

has the Board's recommendations before him at 

this time, the clock is going on that part of 

the petition, and we are essentially on 

schedule for taking action at our next meeting. 

MR. GIBSON: Yeah, I'm fine with that. I'll withdraw 

the Mallinckrodt portion of it at this time. 

DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Let me ask if any of the other 

Board members have questions or comments 

relative to the Mallinckrodt petition that they 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

77 

would like to raise at this point? 

DR. DEHART: Paul, this is Roy. 

DR. ZIEMER: Yes, Roy. 

DR. DEHART: I'm a little confused with the 

discussion that's been going on as to timing. 

If we're going to be discussing this at the end 

of the month, it really is critical that we 

have it available to us at least five to seven 

days before the Board meeting. 

DR. WADE: And that would be Tuesday of next week. 

Tentatively we're looking at a discussion of 

the Mallinckrodt --

DR. ZIEMER: Well, yeah, I think a week from Tuesday 

is what -- Roy's talking about the 19th, I 

think, Lew. 

DR. WADE: Then we have to -- let me work to see that 

that delivery's made. 

DR. DEHART: Fine. 

DR. ZIEMER: Yes, Roy, the intent is that we will 

indeed have that. Now if that doesn't occur, 

then we'll have to deal with that issue. 

DR. WADE: Well, we do have a draft of an SC&A report 

that, if nothing else, could be made available. 

I think, you know, following our process, the 

more interaction between SC&A and NIOSH that 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

78 

can take place to resolve issues, the better. 

But we do understand the importance of having 

something to the Board next Tuesday. 

MS. MUNN: This is Wanda. Do we have a feel of how 

extensive that material is going to be over and 

above the material that was provided for us 

under the April 5th memorandum -- the 

preliminary -- partial review. 

DR. ZIEMER: Who can answer that then -- John or Lew 

or -- maybe John Mauro. 

MS. MUNN: I'm trying to think in terms of my time 

availability in that time slot and whether it's 

going to be an overwhelming number of hours or 

whether the document itself is going to be of 

the approximate size that we already have from 

the preliminary review. 

DR. WADE: I guess we could only ask John Mauro and 

then NIOSH to speculate on that -- and it would 

be speculation. 

MS. MUNN: Yeah, I understand. 

DR. WADE: John and Jim? 

DR. NETON: Wanda, this is Jim Neton. My first look 

at -- I believe there were 25 pages of comments 

that came --

MS. MUNN: That's correct. 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

79 

DR. NETON: And my first look through the document, 

my sense was that many of the comments were 

carried through -- that were reflective of the 

issues of the pre-1949 time frame. I don't 

know -- I don't know that the bulk of them are 

going to be in the '49 to '57 time frame, so I 

suspect it's going to be much -- much -- many 

fewer pages than 25, but I have not looked at 

it in detail myself to make a judgment. 

MS. MUNN: Fine, that -- that gives me a feel. I 

appreciate that. 

DR. WADE: John -- John Mauro, anything to add? 

DR. MAURO: I believe it's going to be abbreviated. 

It's not going to be much larger than the 

document you folks already received. 

DR. ZIEMER: Okay. 

DR. MAURO: There are a couple of other areas that 

we're exploring, and certainly we will develop 

additional material based on the dialogue we -- 

we have with -- with NIOSH over the next week, 

but it -- it is not going to be a 100-page 

report or 200-page report, as you have seen in 

the past. It'll be a -- an abbreviated version 

of the report, trying to zero in on those 

issues that remain outstanding. 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

80 

MS. MUNN: That resolves my concern. Thank you, 

John. 

DR. ZIEMER: Any other questions or comments on the 

Mallinckrodt petition? 

MR. PRESLEY: Bob Presley. 

DR. ZIEMER: Bob. 

MR. PRESLEY: (Unintelligible) we receive that via 

FedEx as well as e-mail? Because sometimes 

some of us, when we get the e-mail versions, it 

doesn't come out exactly right. 

DR. MAURO: Well, we can certainly -- this is John 

Mauro. We can certainly provide both hard copy 

and electronic copy to everyone. 

MR. PRESLEY: I appreciate that. 

DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. Any other comments? Are you 

ready to -- let's move on then to the next item 

on the agenda, which is to review the draft 

agenda for the upcoming meeting and we can 

review that with -- keeping in mind there's 

some items here that we've already covered that 

need now to appear on the agenda, and I think 

Lew and Cori will do the -- help us get those 

plugged in at the appropriate point, so we'll 

assume that those -- for example, the motion -- 

the Gibson motion will need to be included in 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

81 

there. 

MR. GRIFFON: Paul --

DR. ZIEMER: Yes? 

MR. GRIFFON: -- Mark Griffon. Don't we need to -- I 

think you missed an item, the task order for 

Special Exposure Cohort? 

DR. ZIEMER: Yes. On the agenda that -- that's the 

item after this. Do you have the current -- 

MR. GRIFFON: Oh, okay, I'm -- I'm probably looking 

at an old version of the agenda. I'm sorry. 

DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. I think -- I think on the -- 

you're right, on the -- the original agenda 

showed that as next, but I think the revised 

agenda when the -- when the time change 

occurred, it showed up after this. 

MR. GRIFFON: That's fine. 

REVIEW DRAFT AGENDA FOR UPCOMING MEETING 

DR. ZIEMER: Okay. That -- that is on our agenda 

this morning, as well, Mark. Thank you. 

Okay, if -- do all the Board members have their draft 

copy of -- of the agenda for the Iowa meeting? 

MS. MUNN: Yes. 

DR. ROESSLER: Yes. 

DR. ZIEMER: Okay. The morning of April 25th is 

devoted to a meeting of the subcommittee for 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

82 

dose reconstruction and site profile reviews. 

That is an open meeting, but it is just the 

subcommittee. 

The subcommittee has some items that they have been 

working on. One of those is the wrap-up of the 

first 20 dose reconstructions, and there -- the 

subcommittee made I think good progress on 

that. They have a -- they will have a proposed 

summary of the -- or a proposed wrap-up of the 

first 20 cases and Mark has been working on 

some words for -- some wording for kind of the 

overview, a summary of that. It will include 

the kind of scorecard, our contractor's 

scorecard on the individual dose 

reconstructions and a wrap-up of those that 

will include a matrix of -- of the findings and 

their -- the relative importance level of 

those. Also we -- and -- and perhaps some 

lessons learned. And this will provide a kind 

-- we hope this will provide a kind of template 

on the subsequent dose reconstruction wrap-ups 

and they'll be able to move along more rapidly 

after that. But that will be on the 

subcommittee's agenda. 

I think the subcommittee is -- I'm trying to look 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

83 

here to see what else will be on the 

subcommittee's agenda. I don't think we'll 

have the next 18 ready to look at yet, will we? 

DR. WADE: I don't believe so. 

DR. ZIEMER: I think these cases have ended up on the 

back burner because of the -- SC&A having to 

shift resources to the Mallinckrodt and the 

Iowa petition reviews. 

DR. MAURO: Dr. Ziemer, this is John Mauro. If you'd 

like (unintelligible) on to that. 

DR. ZIEMER: I'm sorry? 

DR. MAURO: This is John Mauro. 

DR. ZIEMER: Yes, John. 

DR. MAURO: I'd just like to respond to the question 

regarding the second set of 18. 

DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, you might tell us where the second 

18 are as (unintelligible) -- 

DR. MAURO: Yes, they -- we will have a draft of our 

version for factual accuracy review available 

to the Board by the end of April, so it will 

not be available for the meeting. 

DR. ZIEMER: Right. Right. The subcommittee will 

also have an opportunity to take an early look 

at the Mallinckrodt and the Iowa materials and 

make any recommendations they wish to make. 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

84 

I'm looking here in my notes to see what other 

items -- those are the main items. 

Mark, were there some additional things that I've 

missed? 

MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, the one thing that I thought was 

the task three report that was out a while ago 

by SC&A --

DR. ZIEMER: Oh, (unintelligible) -- 

MR. GRIFFON: -- we have to make an initial review of 

that. 

DR. ZIEMER: -- report was on the procedures review. 

MR. GRIFFON: Right. 

DR. ZIEMER: And the question was how to handle the 

procedures review, and I think we did agree the 

subcommittee would -- would make a 

recommendation to the Board on how to handle 

procedures review. Right, Mark? 

MR. GRIFFON: Yes. 

DR. ZIEMER: That will also be in the subcommittee 

discussion. We also have -- although it's 

listed under subcommittee, hopefully all the 

Board members can be present by late morning. 

There -- we have on the schedule remarks by 

Senator Harkin. 

DR. WADE: And it's possible there will be -- Senator 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

85 

Grassley might also want to make remarks. I 

don't know at this point. 

DR. ZIEMER: Right. Then we have the -- the full 

Board meeting beginning in the afternoon of the 

25th. We focus initially on the Mallinckrodt 

site profile in that -- in the schedule we have 

allowed basically all afternoon for that. We 

would have appropriate presentations and 

discussion and hopefully some action on that. 

There -- there's been time allowed, in case we don't 

complete Mallinckrodt, to continue that into 

the morning of the next day on Tuesday, so 

you'll notice that the early part of Tuesday 

morning also has been designated for 

Mallinckrodt, if needed. 

DR. WADE: But have that Tuesday -- 

DR. ZIEMER: In the morning -- I'm sorry? 

DR. WADE: Excuse me, Paul, but the -- on Monday 

afternoon we'd be looking at just -- the 

proposal, is that the site profile. 

DR. ZIEMER: Right. 

DR. WADE: There'd be an opportunity for public 

comment period on Monday evening, then on 

Tuesday morning would be devoted to the 

Mallinckrodt SEC petition. 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

86 

DR. ZIEMER: I'm wondering if I'm looking at -- am I 

looking at an old -- I may have an early 

version of the agenda 'cause I'm not showing 

the Monday evening --

DR. WADE: Okay, and it might not, but -- but that is 

our plan, to have a public comment period on 

Monday evening. 

DR. ZIEMER: On Monday. Okay, the draft I'm looking 

at shows it on Tuesday evening. 

DR. WADE: But I think we probably -- this is open 

for discussion -- considered both since Monday 

evening we'd be in the midst of the 

Mallinckrodt discussion and Tuesday evening 

would be in the midst of an Iowa discussion. 

mean I take the Board's recommendation on that, 

but the possibility exists to do two, Monday 

evening and Tuesday evening. 

DR. ZIEMER: Is the Board open to having two evening 

sessions? 

MS. MUNN: This is Wanda. If we actually need them, 

I suppose so. I'm a little reluctant to commit 

to that --

UNIDENTIFIED: (Unintelligible) 

MS. MUNN: -- 'cause that's an extremely long day for 

the Board members. 

I 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

87 

DR. ZIEMER: We might move that up and have it 

(unintelligible) 4:15 time slot. 

MS. MUNN: Okay. 

DR. ZIEMER: How would that be? 

UNIDENTIFIED: Sure. 

DR. ZIEMER: We just have a marker there called 

"other business". Is that -- am I looking at 

the same version of the agenda as others? 

DR. WADE: Yes, you are. 

MS. MUNN: You're (unintelligible) looking at the one 

I'm looking at. 

DR. WADE: The one I'm looking at, as well. 

DR. ZIEMER: So how about if we had public comment at 

4:15? We didn't have quite such a long day 

there. 

MS. MUNN: (Unintelligible) 

DR. ROESSLER: I think that that'll allow people who 

leave work still to get there since that time 

slot is from 4:15 to 6:15. 

DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, that's Gen Roessler commenting, I 

believe. Right? 

DR. ROESSLER: Right. 

DR. WADE: I think that makes sense. 

DR. ZIEMER: Okay. And then -- then we have the -- 

the next morning set aside for final action on 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

88 

that -- on Mallinckrodt petition. 

And then in the afternoon of the 26th we would 

address the Iowa Army Ammunition Plant 

Technical Basis Document. This would -- this 

is the Rev. 1 document. 

DR. ROESSLER: That is the 26th, Tuesday. And then 

that continues in through the afternoon on the 

Iowa document, and then an evening session with 

public comment period, and then into Wednesday 

morning we continue on the Iowa document. And 

we've set aside all morning again for that, 

which would include whatever discussion and 

action then the Board would take. So basically 

we have set aside all afternoon Tuesday, plus 

Tuesday evening and all morning Wednesday to -- 

to work on the Iowa petition. 

DR. WADE: And there's a design construct for both, 

Paul, is that we would begin with, you know, a 

half a day spent on -- in the case of 

Mallinckrodt -- the site profile review, and 

then follow that up with a half a day dealing 

with the Mallinckrodt SEC action. And then the 

same process for Iowa. I was curious as to 

whether or not the Board felt that order was 

appropriate and that the time frames allowed 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

89 

are adequate. I know that at the last meeting 

I think we left with the feeling that we didn't 

have adequate time to do our work. And as I 

said before, I think the records that are 

created, the records made with regard to the 

SEC petition discussion is also important, so I 

wanted us to be sure that we had enough time, 

in the eyes of the Board going in, to address 

those important issues. 

DR. ZIEMER: So are there any Board members -- 

MR. ELLIOTT: Dr. Ziemer, this is Larry Elliott. To 

follow up on what Lew just spoke to, within 

each of those particular agenda areas or agenda 

items, we would envision there would be 

presentations made on the revised site profile, 

there'd be a presentation by SC&A on the review 

of that. And then for the SEC petitions there 

would be a presentation made on the supplement 

-- evaluation report. And then of course 

petitioners' comment period. Am I correct in 

that understanding? 

DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. Yeah, I think in addition to the 

public comments, the petitioners themselves 

would have that opportunity to present any 

comments relative to the new documents or new 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

90 

findings. Right? 

DR. WADE: So the question is, is a four-hour block 

of time, roughly, adequate for each of those 

four items in the eyes of the Board, or do you 

want more time or less time? 

DR. ZIEMER: Any comments from Board members? 

DR. MELIUS: This is Jim Melius. I mean I think that 

it may be adequate. It's just impossible to 

tell without seeing the documents, too, so till 

we get there we're not going to know. I think 

by having Wednesday afternoon if we -- 

(unintelligible) we schedule Wednesday 

afternoon, if we have to go over into that, 

that -- that will be fine. That will give us 

the extra time. We may have to delay 

(unintelligible) afternoon schedule to -- till 

the next meeting. 

DR. WADE: I agree. 

DR. ZIEMER: On Wednesday afternoon we have Y-12 

petition review. Is Y-12 going to be ready for 

NIOSH --

DR. WADE: Probably not. 

DR. ZIEMER: -- petition review? 

DR. WADE: Probably not at this point. I mean it was 

put on at an early date as a place-holder. We 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

91 

will probably not do Y-12. 

DR. ZIEMER: We wouldn't have a Y-12 -- probably 

won't have a Y-12 petition review, and of 

course wouldn't have a -- we wouldn't have a 

contractor's review of Y-12 in any event 'cause 

we have not tasked them to look at Y-12 at this 

point. 

DR. WADE: We would add -- we would add -- 

DR. ZIEMER: I think we have a fair amount of cushion 

there if we need it to go into Wednesday 

afternoon. 

Any other Board comments? We don't need to take 

formal action on this agenda, but we did want 

to get input to make sure that at least you're 

relatively comfortable that we've allowed time. 

You'll notice that we really don't have any of 

our usual things, such as the program update 

and so on. We're really focusing on these two 

SEC petitions at this meeting, the Mallinckrodt 

and the Iowa, and those will consume the major 

portion of our activities for this time period. 

DR. DEHART: Paul, this is Roy. Under the adverse 

condition of not having completed the reviews 

that we need for Iowa, will we still continue 

to make -- make our meeting in Iowa? Is that 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 -- 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

92 

the intent, either way, we're going -- that's 

where we're going? 

DR. ZIEMER: Well, I'm -- I don't know that it'd be 

easy to change it at this point. You're saying 

what happens if the -- if the review -- as the 

folks get into the classified documents -- 

DR. DEHART: Exactly. 

DR. ZIEMER: -- or on -- what if they're unable to 

complete the review and we're not ready for 

final action. I -- I think at this point -- I 

believe we're nonetheless locked into Iowa and 

we will still want to hear from the Iowa 

petitioners and the general public there, so 

even if we were at the point where we said, you 

know, we're not ready to even make a final 

recommendation, it seems to me we're still 

obligated to go there and go as far as we can 

with this material. 

DR. DEHART: That's fine, I just -- I just wanted to 

DR. ZIEMER: (Unintelligible) --

DR. DEHART: -- confirm that 'cause we have some 

planning that we have to do, of course. 

DR. ZIEMER: We're not going to be able to switch 

meetings, I don't -- or meeting places, nor 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

93 

would we want to, I don't believe -- would we? 

DR. WADE: I think we could; I don't know that we 

would want to. 

DR. DEHART: Thank you. 

DR. ZIEMER: But I think Roy is asking what if two or 

-- two weeks from now it became very clear that 

we could not finalize Iowa, would we want to 

wait till the following meeting so that we were 

there at the time when we took action. That's 

what -- really what you're asking, I believe. 

Right? 

DR. DEHART: That's correct. Obviously we need a 

meeting, and I just wanted to assure that -- 

that we all felt comfortable that that is where 

we're going to go. 

DR. ZIEMER: Anyone -- any of the rest of you have 

comments on that? Do you --

MS. HOMER: Dr. Ziemer, this is Cori. We do have a 

contract with a hotel in Cedar Rapids, signed, 

so it'd be difficult to change locations at 

this late date. 

DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Other comments? I think we're -- 

I think we're going to proceed. We're going to 

be optimistic that we will have what we need to 

take action. Any -- anything else on agenda? 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

94 

MR. PRESLEY: This is Bob Presley. 

DR. ZIEMER: Bob. 

MR. PRESLEY: On the agendas again, could I ask that 

whoever sends the agendas out, sometimes the 

agendas are still going out with some type of a 

document. I don't know whether I'm the only 

one on the Board or what it is, but I have not 

gotten an agenda this time that I could read. 

DR. ZIEMER: Really? 

MS. HOMER: I'll make sure you get that, Bob. 

MR. PRESLEY: Thank you. 

DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Then I think we're -- we're ready 

to move on to the Special Exposure Cohort task 

issue. Mark --

DR. WADE: Why don't you let Mark Griffon -- 

DR. ZIEMER: -- you want to (unintelligible) off for 

us? 

UNIDENTIFIED: Sure. 

MR. GRIFFON: I'm sorry, Paul, this is Mark Griffon. 

DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, Mark. 

MR. GRIFFON: One more thing on the agenda, I don't 

have the agenda in front of me, either, did -- 

was there -- after the Iowa petition 

discussion, are there any other agenda items on 

-- on the agenda? 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

95 

DR. ZIEMER: We have contract actions with SC&A on 

there where we would -- if we have an action to 

take on the -- on petition review task, there's 

-- that's -- that would go, or any changes to 

be made in contractor's task are on there, any 

actions that come out of the subcommittee -- 

for example, we -- we -- I don't see it here 

now, but I'll mention to Lew we'll need to have 

a place for action on the wrap-up of the first 

20 cases. 

MR. GRIFFON: Right. 

DR. ZIEMER: And I'm -- I believe -- we're hopeful 

the subcommittee will also have a 

recommendation on handling the procedures 

review task, so we'll need -- need those to be 

in that Wednesday afternoon slot. 

MR. GRIFFON: Right. 

DR. WADE: I was also going to try and do a cost 

accounting of the contract -- 

DR. ZIEMER: Right. 

DR. WADE: -- give you a sense --

DR. ZIEMER: Right. 

DR. WADE: And then maybe look three Board meetings 

out to start to roughly put together agenda for 

subsequent Board meetings so we could have a 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 -- 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

96 

bit of a future planning in our process. 

DR. ZIEMER: I would also suggest, and we can be 

flexible on this, but if we can have a 15 or 

20-minute program update as to where we are in 

the cases processed and so on. Usually we have 

it at the front end of our meeting, but if we 

had it here, even if we ran out of time, we 

could have it with a written report. 

DR. WADE: Okay. That will be added. 

DR. ZIEMER: Okay, Mark? 

MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, and I think earlier in this call 

I think Mike Gibson mentioned the idea of a 

need -- or someone mentioned the idea of a need 

for discussing the Board process and procedures 

DR. WADE: Right, that --

MR. GRIFFON: -- going forward, and I think that 

should be an agenda item in that -- 

DR. ZIEMER: Right, right. 

DR. WADE: As well as the motion on Mike's letter of 

explanation -- regrets. Yeah, my principal 

interest in the agenda to you is to get the big 

blocks of Iowa and Mallinckrodt understood and 

agreed upon. 

DR. ZIEMER: Okay. 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

97 

TASK FOR SC&A, SPECIAL EXPOSURE COHORT PETITION WORK 

DR. WADE: Okay. To the -- to the question of a task 

for the contractor for SEC petition, obviously 

the activities of the last several months 

points out the possibility that the Board might 

want to engage, in a -- in a very timely 

fashion, its contractor on the review of SEC 

petitions. And we don't have a task in place 

and I would like to proceed with some dispatch 

to (unintelligible) task in place. 

When the contract was originally framed, the original 

scope of work which was provided to you for 

discussion -- if you go to the last page of 

what was provided, it's page seven, there was 

language put in the original contract to deal 

with the review of SEC petitions, and I can 

read that language; it's very brief. (Reading) 

The contractor shall be available to assist the 

Advisory Board in reviewing SEC petition 

determinations. The contractor may be 

requested to assist in some or all of the SEC 

petition reviews. 

It goes on to say (reading) The contractor shall 

review all relevant methodologies and/or 

procedures employed by NIOSH evaluating and 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

98 

processing SEC petition consistent with the 

statute and the SEC regulations. 

The reality of the SEC petition review work is that 

it would -- it would tend to be very 

spontaneous. It could be very different one 

case to the other. We don't know what kind of 

petitions we will receive. We don't know -- I 

don't know what the Board might want of SEC 

(sic) in any particular case. So -- so I think 

there are two things at play here. There is 

sort of a need to have a very responsive -- 

potentially responsive task in place that the 

Board could say to the contractor please look 

at this for us, or look at these questions for 

us, or give us your opinion on these issues. 

And then the second is a more methodical review 

of methodologies and procedures. 

Towards the first, what I would propose is that 

following a discussion here we look at putting 

a very open-ended task in place within the SC&A 

contract that would really basically say that 

the Board anticipates approaching SC&A on 

issues related to SEC petitions up to a certain 

number per year, and that the Board imagines 

that in response to that SC&A would have to 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

99 

spend man-hours up to a certain amount of 

money. We could then get an independent 

government cost estimate for such a task, and 

then have that task in place quickly so that 

the Board could, at a moment's notice, ask SC&A 

under that task to take on particular work. We 

don't know exactly what that work would -- or 

could be. 

We could move very quickly to do that if we had a 

discussion of the Board today and the Board is 

comfortable with such an open-ended task and 

then allows me to pursue an independent 

government cost estimate. It is very likely we 

could have a task in place -- a responsive task 

in place by the time we met in -- at the end of 

April. 

There is also the more methodical potential review 

that is covered in the second sentence I read, 

and I think towards that end Mark had developed 

during the subcommittee meeting some language 

to -- to talk about a sort of a more review 

type of function. It is not so much a 

responsive function. I think we certainly need 

the responsive function and as the Board feels 

it's in order we could pursue a review 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

100 

function. But I would like to see the 

responsive function in place quickly so that 

the Board could request action as early as its 

next meeting. 

Mark, would you want to walk folks through the 

document you developed, as well? 

MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. Yeah, I'm trying to in my mind 

sort out the -- the distinction. I mean mine -

- yeah, this -- this is a -- I don't know if 

you forwarded this to the rest of the Board -- 

DR. WADE: Yes, we did -- I believe we did. 

MR. GRIFFON: Okay. But it -- you know, it lays out, 

as best we -- as best I could, sort of trying 

to anticipate the work that might be done to 

support us and -- in SEC petition evaluation 

report reviews. And it starts off with 

reviewing the procedures that are in place -- 

ORAU procedures (unintelligible) ORAU/NIOSH 

procedures. 

DR. ZIEMER: Before Mark starts -- this is Ziemer 

again -- let me ask if the Board members in 

fact all have copies of Mark's draft. It's 

called Special Exposure Cohort Petition Review 

Task Order. 

DR. ROESSLER: I think so, is it a two -- two-page 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

101 

document? 

MR. GRIFFON: A two-page --

DR. ZIEMER: A two-pager. 

MR. GRIFFON: -- document, yes. 

DR. ZIEMER: Let's see, Mark, the correct version -- 

is there a date on the most recent version? 

MR. GRIFFON: There's no date on what I forwarded, 

unfortunately. I apologize for that. 

(Unintelligible) before the last subcommittee 

meeting. 

DR. ZIEMER: Okay. 

DR. ROESSLER: This is Roessler. I got one by e-mail 

on March 31st from Cori. Is it part of a March 

31st e-mail? 

DR. WADE: Right, that would be it. 

DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. 

DR. ROESSLER: That's it? Okay. 

MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, the title is Special Exposure 

Cohort Petition Review Task Order. 

DR. ROESSLER: Right. 

MR. GRIFFON: And it's got -- if you look down, it's 

five main items in the description of work. 

And like I said, the first one is to sort of 

review the procedures being used to develop the 

petition evaluation. Second is to help the 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

102 

Board in developing its own procedure -- 

drafting a procedure for how -- how -- how to 

review. The third is -- is just an estimate of 

the number of petitions and, to some extent, 

the type, because I think (unintelligible) 

there is a difference of (unintelligible) 

involved in a DOE petition or a AWE petition, 

or that -- a petition at a site where there's 

no site profile or TBD, so that the work 

required, the man-hours, might be different for 

those different types of sites or different 

types of petitions. And the fourth talked 

about (unintelligible), and then -- and the 

fifth talks about -- again, detailing some of 

the data and/or experts that the contractor 

shall be required to consider in -- in doing a 

technical review. And that -- and that's it, 

then the period of performance and the 

reporting and deliverables. 

DR. ZIEMER: Now Lew, do you -- do you view this as 

being different from -- or just more detailed 

than what you just described initially? 

DR. WADE: At least at this point in my thinking, 

Paul, I see the possibility of two tasks 

relative to SEC petition reviews, and I think 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

103 

they flow each from the two sentences in the 

statement of work. What Mark has outlined is -

- I would -- I would define as more of a 

methodical review of procedures and of work, 

and you know, I think we can pursue that if -- 

if it's the Board's wish. 

The first -- flowing from the first sentence in the 

statement of work would be a -- to put in place 

a more responsive potential task that would 

allow the Board to approach SC&A with a 

particular task or question regarding an SEC 

petition. It might -- it wouldn't fall, in my 

view, under the heading of a methodical review, 

but it would be saying to the contractor we 

would like you to focus on this petition, this 

question, this aspect of that petition; please 

get back to us in a fairly timely way. 

These SEC things have clocks associated with them, 

and I think -- I would like to see the Board in 

a position to engage its contractor in a timely 

(unintelligible) as it needs it, and I would 

like to see such a task in place, if it suits 

the Board. It doesn't preclude the more 

systematic, methodical review that Mark is 

discussing. 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

104 

DR. ZIEMER: It could -- it could be a general sort 

of process that you described be one of the 

subtasks in this document that Mark has 

developed. 

DR. WADE: It could be. 

DR. ZIEMER: Or -- I'm just asking from a practical 

point of view --

DR. WADE: I -- I --

DR. ZIEMER: -- is it better to have two separate 

tasks or --

DR. WADE: Well, I --

DR. ZIEMER: -- or to have one task that's more 

inclusive? 

DR. WADE: Well, you know, I think you could argue 

either way. I mean there are arguments that 

say one task more inclusive. I was trying to 

get something in place very quickly so that the 

Board could have it. I guess we could do both. 

We could get a task in place more quickly and 

then have that task subsumed into the more 

complete task that Mark is talking about and 

that -- so that we would never (unintelligible) 

have the ability to -- for the Board to engage 

its contractor if it wanted to on an SEC 

question. 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

105 

DR. ZIEMER: Uh-huh, all right. Basically you're 

asking whether or not you -- the Board would 

like you yet at this meeting to begin putting 

in place this sort of general SEC task. 

DR. WADE: Right. 

DR. ZIEMER: Or -- and alternatively, we would -- or 

maybe both -- either alternatively or in 

addition, at our Iowa meeting we would act 

formally on this document that -- that Mark has 

developed. 

DR. WADE: Correct. 

DR. ZIEMER: Or we could act on it here if we wished. 

Board members, do you want to react, respond, 

comment on these approaches? 

MS. MUNN: This is Wanda. It's almost impossible for 

me -- when I -- when I first read the document 

when I received it, my first thought is the 

stuff that sticks with me now as we discuss it. 

I do not have personally a good feel for the 

depth of resources we have here. I've had the 

impression that our -- our requests of our 

contractor are stretching not just their 

resources, but the resources that are available 

anywhere in the United States, for doing these 

things. And I continue, as mentioned earlier, 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

106 

to be concerned about how much financial 

cushion we have to do these things. 

I don't see how I personally can take a position on 

what to do with this task in front of us. I 

understand what Lew's saying with respect to 

the need for rapid response in these 

circumstances. But by the same token, I don't 

have a strong feeling for what this means to 

our contractor. 

DR. ZIEMER: I don't know if anyone's prepared to 

answer those questions, but they are some 

thoughts to be considered. Other comments or 

questions? 

DR. MELIUS: Yeah, this is Jim Melius. 

DR. ZIEMER: Jim. 

DR. MELIUS: I agree that we're pressing our 

contractor, but I think it's pressing them in 

terms of the time expectations. We're giving 

them short time frames to respond to the 

document that has taken NIOSH months or years 

to develop, and then we're expecting them -- in 

two weeks or two months -- to (unintelligible) 

comprehensive review (unintelligible) out that 

(unintelligible) time to have done all the sort 

of procedural review (unintelligible) you know, 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

107 

that would facilitate the (unintelligible) site 

profile reviews or whatever. So I'm not 

concerned about the resources of our 

contractor, except in the sense that what I 

think we're sometimes making unrealistic 

(unintelligible) on them. 

Regarding this task order -- these (unintelligible) 

proposals (unintelligible) I'd be supportive of 

having the rapid response task order replaced 

by our (unintelligible) 'cause I think there 

may be some issues that may need to be dealt 

with that -- I'm a little reluctant to use that 

as our sole and only approach to dealing with 

SEC petition reviews because I think we need to 

develop a consistent approach. I don't 

(unintelligible) something that we can do by 

asking selective questions. I think the more 

comprehensive approach to evaluating those 

evaluations that (unintelligible) is producing 

and I -- I think that -- see, I would like to 

see, and again I'd be willing to approve a 

short-term -- the short term of selective rapid 

response, but that needs to be phased out and 

we need -- subsumed by a more comprehensive 

task order to evaluate the SEC petition 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

108 

evaluations. 

DR. ZIEMER: So bottom line, Jim, you're suggesting 

that perhaps we'd go ahead with the sort of 

general task order and then spend a little more 

time on developing the more detailed one? Is 

that... 

DR. MELIUS: (Unintelligible) 'cause I think we -- on 

the more detailed one I think we need to be a 

little bit more specific about what questions 

we want them to address and how we want them to 

(unintelligible) questions that I'm not sure 

were quite there that (unintelligible) think we 

should be ready by the -- 

DR. ZIEMER: Okay, well --

DR. MELIUS: -- (unintelligible) set up by the time 

of the meeting in Iowa in a couple of weeks. 

DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Other comments or suggestions? 

MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, this is Mark Griffon. I mean 

that's part of my reaction I guess to the quick 

response or fast response open-ended task is 

that, you know, we're -- I'm just -- I get a 

little nervous that we're going to set 

ourselves up for problems with consistency on 

how we (unintelligible) petitions. And these 

first few that we handle are going to 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

109 

potentially set precedents, so I think that we 

-- we really need to have that in mind as we 

proceed, you know, understanding certainly the 

time pressures that we have on these two. And 

I also think it's important to put -- you know, 

to just put this in a little bit of context 

that, you know, the Board certainly considered 

this a long time ago -- 

DR. WADE: Uh-huh. 

MR. GRIFFON: -- and we had this in our initial 

contract language. 

DR. WADE: Yeah. 

MR. GRIFFON: I mean I remember drafting this stuff -

- I think it was over two years ago. I 

remember it being discussed in Idaho and I 

remember that basically we were told that -- 

that NIOSH felt that -- that our contractor 

should not have a role in regard to SEC 

reviews. So now to be put under the gun to 

sort of ad hoc phrase questions and review 

petitions I think could put us in a jam as we 

go forward. I think -- you know, part of the 

reason in this task order that I drafted, part 

of the reason for number two -- I think it's 

number two -- is so that we have some sort of 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

110 

consistent procedures internally, within the 

Board, on how we're going to handle these, and 

that may include some more specific, you know, 

framed questions that we want to address when 

we kick into that kind of review. 

Also I should say that I don't anticipate that for 

every petition we would necessarily take -- 

make a Board motion to (unintelligible) have it 

reviewed by -- by -- you know, by SC&A. You 

know, some petitions may have issues that we 

believe we're fully capable of handling without 

the technical assistance of SC&A and we proceed 

as we did on the first two classes within 

Mallinckrodt. But where it is -- you know, 

where we do decide that we need technical 

assistance, I think we -- we -- I'm worried 

about that consistency. 

DR. WADE: Understood. 

DR. ZIEMER: This is Ziemer again. Let me pose a 

question to Lew. Is -- is there anything that 

would change between now and our regular full 

meeting if we have the -- sort of this general 

task order that you described? We already have 

covered -- the Iowa and the Mallinckrodt are 

being covered under the tasks of the -- of the 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

111 

site profile reviews, so those will continue in 

any event. Right? 

DR. WADE: Correct. 

MR. GRIFFON: Paul, but the -- this is Mark Griffon. 

I mean they're being covered in the sense that 

the site profile documents are being reviewed, 

but the contractor has not been asked to review 

the petitions in any way, and there is a 

distinction there. 

DR. WADE: That's right. 

DR. ZIEMER: Yes, but I'm asking if anything would 

change for these two in the next two weeks if 

we had this --

MR. GRIFFON: Oh, I see --

DR. ZIEMER: -- supposed doc-- in other words, is 

there an urgency on doing that or can we -- can 

we delay until our meeting where we fully 

discuss Mark's draft and whether or not we need 

the -- this additional sort of broad task 

order. 

DR. WADE: Right. The only -- the only contingency 

that I would (unintelligible due to static on 

telephone line) not knowing what would happen 

at the next (unintelligible) holding open the 

possibility that the Board might decide at that 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

112 

point that it would want some, quote, SEC work 

done by the contractor and I was trying to have 

a mechanism in place. The path --

DR. ZIEMER: So ready --

DR. WADE: -- we're on now --

DR. ZIEMER: -- to go --

DR. WADE: -- of having --

DR. ZIEMER: -- immediately. 

DR. WADE: Excuse me? 

DR. ZIEMER: So it would be ready to go immediately? 

DR. WADE: Right. But you know, I also understand 

Mark's concerns and the logic of what he's 

saying. I mean developing this, you know, more 

fully at the next meeting is also fine. I was 

just trying to have something in place as a 

contingency, not knowing what might happen at 

the next Board meeting -- or subsequent Board 

meetings. But you know, I do understand the 

need to take the more methodical approach, and 

I'm not opposed to that. 

DR. ZIEMER: If the Board wishes to have the -- what 

I'll call the contingency task in place, and we 

would -- the Chair would like a motion to that 

effect. In the absence of a motion, it would 

be my intent that we would take full action on 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

113 

Mark's draft at our upcoming meeting. 

MR. GRIFFON: Can I ask one more question? Mark 

Griffon. 

DR. ZIEMER: Yes. 

MR. GRIFFON: At the -- at the subcommittee meeting I 

was under the understanding that, you know, we 

have this -- this (unintelligible) that I 

brought this up (unintelligible) meeting and I 

was under the understanding that we -- we said 

to Lew -- Lew Wade, you know, we're -- we're 

comfortable (unintelligible) entire Board is 

(unintelligible) comfortable with Lew going 

away and doing (unintelligible) cost estimate 

for this and moving forward pending a vote by 

the full Board on this draft task order. I 

don't understand if -- if this more 

comprehensive task would take longer to work 

through the system than the -- than the other -

- the other task that Lew was describing, the 

more general task, the (unintelligible) openended task. 

DR. ZIEMER: Lew, do you --

DR. WADE: I think in principle it would, Mark, 

although, you know, we won't know until we do 

that. You know, I think to develop a cost 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

114 

estimate -- first to flesh this out and develop 

a cost estimate for it is going to take some 

time. You know, at any point you like we can 

start on that. I was just looking at the 

possibility of a contingency in place, but it 

really is at the Board's -- for the Board's 

needs that I was doing that. If the Board 

doesn't feel so inclined, that's fine with me. 

DR. ZIEMER: One other option would be to do a sort 

of preliminary approval of this draft -- or an 

actual approval -- it's the Board's prerogative 

to approve it as it is -- and ask Lew to 

proceed on developing a government cost 

estimate. So that's another option, obviously. 

But the Chair is open to motions for specific 

action. Otherwise it will simply be delayed 

till our regular meeting next -- at the end of 

the month. 

 (No responses) 

DR. ZIEMER: Are there no motions? 

 (No responses) 

DR. ZIEMER: Okay. I hear no motion to have the -- 

what I'm describing as the contingency task. 

Then without objection, this will be on the -- 

on the agenda for action at the next meeting. 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

115 

Now Mark, do you want to solicit -- in the meantime 

solicit any comments for wording and so on on 

this? 

MR. GRIFFON: Sure, yeah. Yeah. 

DR. ZIEMER: So Board members, if you want -- if you 

want to give feedback to Mark, and perhaps -- 

perhaps we can give some thought, Mark, to 

adding a paragraph that would deal -- or would 

address sort of specific issue kinds of things. 

Maybe it's already contained in here, but you 

know, where -- where we're not asking for a 

complete review of all parts of a particular 

petition, but that's something that could be 

added. 

MR. ELLIOTT: This is Larry Elliott. Dr. Ziemer and 

Mark, I would (unintelligible) both of you. 

Number -- item number three under Mark's draft 

speaks to reviewing numbers of petitions from 

different categories. I'm just -- I would 

offer for your consideration that perhaps maybe 

this -- this number three might be where you 

could craft that language so that you can 

provide a (unintelligible) reaction by review. 

We here in OCAS simply can't predict how many 

petitions are we going to get or where those 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

116 

petitions are going to come from. And right 

now we have -- we do not even have eight. 

DR. ZIEMER: Right. In fact I think we -- I think 

when we talked about this, Mark, we talked 

about making that up -- up to or something, and 

we put some numbers in there mainly so there'd 

be a way of getting our cost estimate, that the 

contractor would be able to give a unit cost 

based on a certain number (unintelligible). 

MR. GRIFFON: That's correct, and I (unintelligible) 

it up to, I didn't circulate that yet, but 

that's correct. 

DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, right. So -- yeah, we understand 

that, Larry, that we don't want to mandate 

they're going to do a certain number. We don't 

even if that number will come in, but we're -- 

we're aware of that. Right? 

MR. GRIFFON: Yes. 

DR. ZIEMER: And I think minor modifications could be 

(unintelligible) so that it covered the things 

that Lew talked about, probably. 

DR. WADE: Right. Just the one question that -- that 

I had, and obviously we can talk about this, is 

are we really talking about a retrospective 

review where we would be looking at the SEC 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

117 

process as it had taken place, or are we trying 

to look at a task that would provide the Board 

information in real time as it makes decisions? 

DR. ZIEMER: I think it's the latter. We're not 

looking at this as a -- as a quality control 

type of thing like we do on the dose 

reconstructions. 

DR. WADE: Okay. 

DR. ZIEMER: Isn't that correct? Is that everybody's 

understanding, that we're looking for 

assistance in the decision-making? 

MR. GRIFFON: Yes, that's my understanding. 

MR. PRESLEY: This is Bob Presley, that's my 

understanding. 

DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. So in that respect it is 

certainly different from the other two 

processes, dose reconstruction and site profile 

reviews, as a quality control procedure. 

Okay, I think we have what we need on this item 

(unintelligible). Right? 

DR. WADE: Yes. 

DR. ZIEMER: We're ready then to move to the public 

comment --

MR. GRIFFON: Paul, can I (unintelligible) -- 

UNIDENTIFIED: Excuse me (unintelligible) -- 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

118 

DR. WADE: One other issue (unintelligible) -- 

DR. ZIEMER: Are we getting interference? 

MS. MUNN: I'm getting lots of interference. I can 

hardly hear you, Dr. Ziemer, and -- 

DR. ZIEMER: Again, let me ask that -- 

MS. MUNN: -- lots of static. Am I the only one -- 

DR. ZIEMER: -- (unintelligible) if you have 

(unintelligible) --

MR. PRESLEY: (Unintelligible) this is Bob Presley. 

I'm getting the same thing. 

DR. ZIEMER: -- (unintelligible) your phones. 

MS. MUNN: That's better. 

PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD 

DR. ZIEMER: Now we are open for public comment and 

(unintelligible) on members of the public and 

the Board is not in a position to discuss with 

you specific cases. You're free to describe 

any particular things you wish, but these will 

be without comment (unintelligible) the Board 

(unintelligible) listen to what you may have to 

say --

MS. SCHUMACHER-KORDING: Dr. Ziemer --

DR. ZIEMER: -- (unintelligible) -- yes? 

MS. SCHUMACHER-KORDING: This is Sharon SchumacherKording in (unintelligible). May I go first, 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

119 

please? 

DR. ZIEMER: We'd be glad to have you do so -- 

MS. SCHUMACHER-KORDING: I appreciate --

DR. ZIEMER: -- (unintelligible). 

MS. SCHUMACHER-KORDING: -- the Board 

(unintelligible) Iowa, but I have travel plans 

that cannot be broken. I will not be there. I 

have -- first question, has any representative 

of Grassley or Harkins (sic) come on board 

during this conversation? 

MR. (UNINTELLIGIBLE): Yes, (unintelligible) is here 

with Senator Grassley. 

MS. SCHUMACHER-KORDING: Okay, thank you very much, 

because I have a real concern about how 

intently our legislatures (sic) in Iowa are 

fighting for us versus those in Missouri. 

Those in Missouri are awarded. The comparison 

that NIOSH is making on this dose 

reconstruction, you use Pantex and using the 

bomb (unintelligible) of Japan. First of all, 

comparing IAAP with Pantex is about like 

comparing the state of Texas to the state of 

Iowa. They have one commonality and that's 

they're both states. Same thing with the dose 

reconstruction process. One commonality, they 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

120 

were AEC plants. Other than that, it's totally 

different situations. That's a known fact, 

regardless of what NIOSH says it is 

(unintelligible). 

Wanda's concern, other Board members' concerns about 

(unintelligible). I'm not sure how long the 

Board's been put together, two years or three 

years. There's a great deal of money spent 

(unintelligible). Everybody (unintelligible) 

yes, there's this problem and up front 

compensated all these people there would have 

been several hundred thousand dollars saved 

(unintelligible). I'm disappointed totally in 

NIOSH (unintelligible) they have become 

(unintelligible) they have been noncommunicative with some of us that would 

occasionally write down a question that 

(unintelligible) answers from them, very up 

front answers from them and at this point they 

have become non-communicative with us. I don't 

know why. I don't know why they don't feel 

that your contractor should not be involved in 

the SEC (unintelligible) something for you guys 

to decide. 

It's just a real runaround. The Japanese bombings 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

121 

comparatively to the amount of radiation 

exposure, that's like all of us going into the 

(unintelligible) of the apple tree that has a 

bunch of finches in it versus us all going out 

and sitting under a pine tree that has a bunch 

of vultures in it. One commonality, they're 

both birds. You know, the only commonality 

here is radiation (unintelligible) there's 

other people on this line (unintelligible) more 

detailed information, but I have also found 

(unintelligible) many, many sites that say that 

the time line for radiation is not what NIOSH 

claimed it to be, but it's longer. And how 

these people (unintelligible) IAAP put their 

hand in the pits and not have an adequate 

amount of dose exposure is beyond me. And I 

won't go into the sadness of the whole thing. 

You heard all that in St. Louis and I'm sure 

you'll hear it in Cedar Rapids. 

There's documents that I would like to find ways of 

getting. I'm sure that (unintelligible) on the 

line will also have those concerns about 

(unintelligible) documents we heard about today 

and we'll have them. 

My last question to you, at this point do you have 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

122 

any idea when your meeting after Cedar Rapids 

would be? 

DR. ZIEMER: What was the question, is when 

(unintelligible)? 

MS. SCHUMACHER-KORDING: Your one in Cedar Rapids is 

(unintelligible) weeks. 

DR. ZIEMER: Monday, April 25th --

MS. SCHUMACHER-KORDING: Right, when will your 

meeting following that be, an approximate time 

line month? 

DR. ZIEMER: Oh, let's see, if Cori's on the line 

maybe you can --

MS. HOMER: I am. 

DR. ZIEMER: We (unintelligible) rough time lines but 

I don't know if we have it pinned down yet. 

MS. HOMER: We're looking at the second week of July, 

the 6th, 7th and 8th tentatively. 

MS. SCHUMACHER-KORDING: Thank you, Cori, I 

appreciate that. This way I can have it on my 

calendar and not have anything else interfere 

with it, so I appreciate that. Thank you for 

your time. 

DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. Other members of the public 

wish to comment? 

MS. GRAHAM: Yes, I would. 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

123 

DR. ZIEMER: Please give your name and location. 

MS. GRAHAM: My name is Paula Graham and I'm from 

Iowa -- Fort Madison, Iowa, and I want to talk 

about the IAAP. And I've been taking notes 

here as you talked, and one thing I want to 

stress again is transparency. We need to be 

able to see this information. I know it's 

classified, but surely the workers need a 

representative to look at that classified 

information or the classified documents. I 

don't want to -- one person I would suggest 

would be Dr. Laurence Fuortes from the 

University of Iowa. He has scientific and 

medical expertise and I think that all of the 

workers trust him completely on this. I do 

remember Larry Elliott saying about that they 

were working on a revised site profile at the 

meeting, and thought that the Board members 

understood that, too, and then you voted on it 

after he had made that comment. So I really 

think that you -- the SEC approval for the IAAP 

should stand. 

However, I think that the workers and survivors came 

prepared to the St. Louis meeting with some of 

the evidence. It's been four-plus years since 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

124 

EEOICPA Act was passed in 2000. And it seems 

to me that our government agencies could have 

had this worked through sooner than this. I 

realize it takes a lot of time to get something 

organized, but this seems like a lifetime to 

these people back here. 

I have some questions. You're going to be reviewing 

things that (unintelligible) -- what is it, 

SC&A? -- have to provide you. You're going to 

be reviewing the revised site profile and other 

things. What about information that workers 

and survivors have gathered since your meeting 

in St. Louis? I think (unintelligible) days in 

the basement of the Lee County Health 

Department here in Fort Madison, Iowa, where a 

lot of documents and records are stored about 

the IAAP and -- just a second, I can tell you 

when (unintelligible) -- here it is. It's 

called the -- it's called the work plan for 

supplemental remediation investigation for Line 

1 (unintelligible) for the IAAP. And that's 

what -- we've been researching this thing at 

the historical site (unintelligible) for the 

IAAP and we've come up with another thing. 

We've paid money to copy these pages and we 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

125 

made comments on them, and if we 

(unintelligible) those at the Cedar Rapids 

meeting, you're not going to have time to look 

them over. My question is would you like to 

see these, Dr. Ziemer, for me to mail them to 

you? 

DR. ZIEMER: These -- these kinds of documents -- 

this is the reason we have a contractor to help 

us out because the Board members are not in a 

position to individually review all of these 

documents personally, so -- 

MS. GRAHAM: Yes. 

DR. ZIEMER: Yes, so we do have our contractor that 

helps with this kind of thing. 

MS. GRAHAM: Well, should they be (unintelligible)? 

DR. ZIEMER: I don't know which documents you have, 

but if -- if NIOSH has them available and our 

contractor (unintelligible) will have them 

available, as well. 

MS. GRAHAM: You mean --

DR. ZIEMER: Are we talking about documents that 

NIOSH is not aware of? 

MS. GRAHAM: Well, I've come across things that they 

haven't even mentioned in the site profile. 

DR. ZIEMER: Uh-huh. 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

126 

MS. GRAHAM: For instance, I'll give you an example, 

in the 1960's, according to this -- this 

document, it's the historical site assessment, 

in the 1960's an atomic bomb -- there was an 

airpl-- so it says here, an airplane crashed. 

An atomic bomb evidently fell out of the plane 

some way and on the cement it damaged it and it 

was brought to the Iowa Army Ammunition Plant 

to be disassembled. I've talked to another 

person --

DR. ZIEMER: Well, what might be (unintelligible) is 

-- Paula, is that if you have documents that 

you think have not been seen NIOSH, that you 

make your list of documents available. 

Larry, is this appropriate that if Paula has 

additional documents that she can -- you could 

at least examine the titles and assure that 

they have been reviewed? 

MR. ELLIOTT: Certainly -- this is Larry Elliott. 

Certainly we would love to have any information 

that can be provided about Iowa that we may not 

have discovered ourselves, and we would make 

that -- you know, if you send it to me, Mrs. 

Graham, I'll make sure that Sanford Cohen & 

Associates has it, as well. 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

127 

MS. GRAHAM: Okay. It's quite a few pages. I've 

copied the ones that I thought were pertinent, 

that maybe helped the cause. 

DR. ZIEMER: And Paula, I believe you have Larry's 

address 'cause you've -- we've had -- 

MS. GRAHAM: I probably do. I have his e-mail and 

everything else. I've talked to him before. 

DR. ZIEMER: If you can make sure -- if you have 

documents that perhaps may have not been 

discovered, make sure that they are available 

and if NIOSH gets them, they're in the system 

and they will become available -- 

MS. GRAHAM: Yeah, (unintelligible). 

DR. ZIEMER: -- to the Board and its contractors, as 

well. 

MR. ELLIOTT: Mrs. Graham, I'll have -- I'll -- we'll 

call you and give you our Federal Express 

number to use. 

MS. GRAHAM: Okay. I -- that's -- does that -- 

that'll be pretty helpful, and then I can FedEx 

it to you like overnight or something, next 

day? 

MR. ELLIOTT: That'll be fine. 

MS. GRAHAM: Okay. It might take me a day or two to 

make a bunch of copies again because I want to 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

128 

keep a copy, and then I -- I'll send you most 

of the -- of other things that we have 

uncovered in this historical site profile 

assessment. This is available to the public. 

It's been there for quite a while and it's so 

dusty and the lady asked (unintelligible) to 

bring a dust rag 'cause she said nobody comes 

to see it, you're the only people. We looked 

at some of these in 2001 but then I had to have 

surgery and was sick, and so we went back in 

the last two or three weeks and spent a lot of 

time there. And -- and I know (unintelligible) 

up there to use at the meeting and people 

laughed at some of these things, but you won't 

have time to look them over. Oh, I will be 

there and if Larry will send me, like you say, 

his FedEx number, I'll get it out in the next 

few days. 

MR. ELLIOTT: Mrs. Graham, if you would -- Mrs. 

Graham, if you would, just send me an e-mail 

with your phone number just so I make sure I 

have your current phone number. 

MS. GRAHAM: Okay. Is this Larry? 

MR. ELLIOTT: Yes. 

MS. GRAHAM: Okay, I will. 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

129 

MR. ELLIOTT: Okay. 

MS. GRAHAM: I'll send you one. 

DR. ZIEMER: Thank you, Paula. 

MS. GRAHAM: And so I wanted to bring out some of 

these things right here today that I'm making 

some of them since you started talking here 

today, I'm (unintelligible) of other things, 

but I'll just send all that to Mr. Elliott and 

he can give it to --

DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, that'll be the most efficient way 

to do it, I think. 

MS. GRAHAM: -- SC&A and then I would like to 

(unintelligible) in Cedar Rapids I'd like to 

have a chance to talk. 

DR. ZIEMER: Right. 

UNIDENTIFIED: Excuse me, please. Can I interrupt 

here for a minute? 

MS. GRAHAM: Sure. 

UNIDENTIFIED: (Unintelligible) Iowa. 

MS. GRAHAM: Pardon me? 

DR. ZIEMER: Paula, have you finished? 

MS. GRAHAM: Yes. Okay. 

DR. ZIEMER: Thanks. Who's --

UNIDENTIFIED: (Unintelligible) Ziemer 

(unintelligible). 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

130 

DR. ZIEMER: Who is the next speaker? 

MR. (UNINTELLIGIBLE): This is Ed (unintelligible) in 

Burlington, Iowa. 

DR. ZIEMER: Yes. 

MR. (UNINTELLIGIBLE): I have a note about that item 

she mentioned that was brought up here 

(unintelligible). I'm part of the team that 

dismantled that unit. It was in what you 

people call a Gravel Gertie number one. We had 

one through six here. That was 

(unintelligible) 25. (Unintelligible) and I 

were solicited by the -- the shift supervisor 

and (unintelligible) Illinois, he's no longer 

with us. He petitioned us real hard to go down 

and take that apart. We both worked together a 

lot with (unintelligible) and special 

operations. We (unintelligible) we did it 

(unintelligible) and that was (unintelligible) 

and I dismantled it and it was the first of 

two. The second we refused to do because the 

supervisor as the first one said if you guys 

will take that apart for me, when you're done, 

you're done. About 9:30, 20 minutes to 10:00, 

we were done with it. The biggest problem with 

the disassembly and recasing that in a good 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

131 

(unintelligible) possibility. When we got 

through with it, I said (unintelligible) let's 

go to the equipment room and see if we can 

scare up a cup of coffee (unintelligible) and 

there sat Paul (unintelligible) we were done, 

we were done, we thought we'd go scrounge up a 

cup of coffee. He said no, don't leave the 

work area. So we went back to -- in the area 

and went back to work, what we were doing 

before. It wasn't two weeks before we were 

picked for another one and we flatly refused 

that one. That was taken apart by Paul 

(unintelligible), the supervisor, and a 

production foreman by the name of Todd, Davey 

Todd. Then when the rest of us went home at 

midnight they were still working on it. I 

thought you might be interested in knowing that 

bit of information. It's factual. And I don't 

know what else I can say to you except I 

appreciate the efforts that are being 

(unintelligible) put forth (unintelligible) to 

get some facts for this stuff. The question 

that I have is why are you concentrating on 

radiation problems (unintelligible)? This was 

the first established (unintelligible) got the 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

132 

contract. They didn't know what the Sam Hill 

they were doing. I was hired the 19th of June 

of 1950 and worked until about (unintelligible) 

April, '75. And whenever I got bored with 

whatever I was doing, I exercised my seniority. 

I worked in every production building 

(unintelligible) facility except 1051, 1052 and 

111. One time (unintelligible) of 111. So I 

would like to know why you don't start from 

scratch. To the best of my knowledge, the 

assembly operations were started in 113 

building in 1949. I (unintelligible) tell you 

what went on in each segment (unintelligible) 

of that building (unintelligible) term of 

employment there. I worked there '50, '51 and 

until October of '52 when it was necessary to 

close that operation down for (unintelligible) 

fit building maintenance. We had a week of 

orientation and were sent to the line property 

as assistants in what was at that point in time 

a primary machining situation, and in addition 

to machining they had the prep area where the 

raw material was cleaned, inspected and 

portioned out for shipment to the 

(unintelligible). I don't know what else I can 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

133 

tell you people other than I have -- that 

particular question bothers me. 

DR. ZIEMER: Uh-huh. 

MR. (UNINTELLIGIBLE): I can no longer recall an 

individual that I worked with in 1950 that's 

still living. I've got a horrible shortness of 

breath problem that I contribute to my 

activities in the preparation area, more 

particularly to the preparation of the berytol 

mix that was pulverized and centron'd and 

inspected and weighed in proper quantities and 

shipped up to the -- to the mill, whichever 

mill had the -- the pour scheduled. And I have 

had shortness of breath since that point of 

time, and I worked in that area for better than 

two years. 

DR. ZIEMER: Uh-huh. 

MR. (UNINTELLIGIBLE): I don't know -- I'm trying to 

keep my ear to the ground on this thing. I'm 

trying to be available for comment. I've had 

some --

DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Well, we appreciate this input, 

Ed, and --

MR. (UNINTELLIGIBLE): I mean we've -- I've had some 

commentaries from a young lady in the state of 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

134 

Washington, pretty long question and answer 

session, and I try to be as factual as I can. 

DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. Well, we appreciate the input 

that you've provided already. 

MR. (UNINTELLIGIBLE): I just have one big question 

for you people. Why are you concerned about 

post-1962? You know, we were -- any time that 

we were ready to question any component part 

that was integrated into the (unintelligible) 

assembly (unintelligible), we were given the 

same answer: You don't need to worry about 

that; that's clean enough to eat off of. In 

the last copy that I got of your TBD had that 

labeled as the floor was clean enough to eat 

off of. The floor wasn't mentioned. I do wish 

that you people would have held another meeting 

at the machinists hall of the constructions 

trades hall for the old-timers. The one that 

you had, there was a whole heck of a lot of 

information brought up to light that was 

pertinent to this situation, and we all 

expressed a desire then that you would hold 

further meetings to go all the way through this 

original breakdown of what was supposedly done 

from '47 to '75. And I think you missed the 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

135 

bit on getting a lot of factual information. 

And I have to point out to you that there's a 

lot of not factual information presented, too. 

You understand what I'm trying to say. 

DR. ZIEMER: Okay. 

MR. (UNINTELLIGIBLE): And I try to be as specific as 

I can without violating trust. We were, I 

think -- I was a radio operator and 

cryptographer in World War II. That was the 

highest clearance -- security clearance 

available for military personnel and I think 

that's why I was hired at the (unintelligible), 

so good luck today and -- 

DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Well, thank you, Ed, for your 

comments. 

UNIDENTIFIED: May I (unintelligible) the Board, 

please? 

DR. ZIEMER: Who -- who would -- who wishes to go 

next? 

MS. WILEY: Me, Shirley Wiley. 

UNIDENTIFIED: (Unintelligible) dogs barking and two 

toilets flushed. 

MS. WILEY: I do. 

DR. ZIEMER: Okay, I'm getting multiple people on the 

line here. We have to go one at a time. 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

136 

UNIDENTIFIED: I don't know, some people either (a) 

don't get it or (b) don't have the mute 

capability. 

MR. (UNINTELLIGIBLE): Thank you for your time. 

DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. Who wishes to speak next? 

UNIDENTIFIED: Hello? 

MS. WILEY: Shirley Wiley. 

DR. ZIEMER: Shirley Wiley? 

MS. WILEY: Yes. I would like to address your 

termination date of August 3rd, 2005 that the 

Advisory Board is not (unintelligible) out by 

appropriation that you are no longer in 

existence. If that happens and we're still in 

-- doing this and you're gone? 

DR. ZIEMER: I don't know the answer to that, but I -

- I think you can expect that -- that the 

Advisory Board and the other parts of the 

program will continue. I don't know if NIOSH 

or Labor can speak to that issue or not. 

DR. WADE: It's certainly our intention to see it 

continue, yes. 

DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Thank you, Shirley. Next? 

MS. KEEBER: Yes, this is Vicki Keeber from 

Gladstone*, Illinois. My parents both worked 

at the Iowa Ammunition Plant and with 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

137 

Burlington. On the information that we're 

trying to get from the National Personnel 

Records Center in St. Louis, Missouri, they are 

pretty reluctant on sending out information. 

Do you have any suggestions on how to get 

further information from them? 

DR. ZIEMER: NIOSH or Labor, can you answer this 

question or give us a reference that she can 

contact? 

 (No responses) 

DR. ZIEMER: Larry, who should she contact or... 

MR. ELLIOTT: Hello? 

MS. KEEBER: Hello? 

MR. ELLIOTT: Sorry, I stepped out of the room. 

DR. ZIEMER: Oh. 

MR. ELLIOTT: Neton can answer the question. 

DR. NETON: Is the question who she can contact that 

can get help in getting information from the 

Federal Records Center? Was that 

(unintelligible)? 

MS. KEEBER: Yes. I -- they've sent back information 

three or four different times, and they had 

wanted the death certificates of my mother and 

father and I sent those, and then they still 

say that they need further information. Well, 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

138 

I don't know how much further information I can 

give them on their death than a death 

certificate. 

DR. NETON: Yeah, I'm not sure what -- how we could 

help you with that. I mean it's their 

requirements, it sounds like, that they're 

imposing. I -- frankly, I don't know what to 

tell you. 

MS. KEEBER: Well, I mean this is information that I 

also feel is pertinent, you know, to our claim. 

DR. NETON: Uh-huh. 

MS. KEEBER: I really don't know, you know, how to 

get any further information from them. 

DR. ZIEMER: This is a Federal Records Center? 

MS. KEEBER: Yes. 

MR. ELLIOTT: I guess we can't help you. All we can 

say is you are going to have to follow their 

procedures and their requirements. That's all 

we know. 

UNIDENTIFIED: Ma'am, may I make a suggestion to you? 

MS. KEEBER: Yes. 

MR. HORGAN: This is Tom Horgan from Senator Bond's 

office. Have you contacted any of your 

representatives in the Illinois delegation, 

either Senator Durbin, Obama or anybody to help 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

139 

you with this information? 

MS. KEEBER: No, I haven't. 

MR. HORGAN: I would strongly suggest that you write 

a letter to them, call them and see if they can 

be helpful in getting you a proper response 

that you might be able to need in terms of what 

information -- further information is provided. 

That may help expedite the process a little 

bit. 

DR. ZIEMER: A good suggestion. 

MS. KEEBER: Oh, okay. 

MR. HORGAN: And Dr. Ziemer -- this is Tom Horgan, I 

don't -- I don't want to cut into public 

comment, but I'm going to have to head on out 

of here. I just want to say thanks a lot for 

having this conference call for everyone 

involved in both Missouri and Iowa, and I know 

that in terms of the next meeting in Cedar 

Rapids, I'm going to try to get there and we 

hope that Senator Bond will -- if Senator 

Harkin and Senator Grassley are going to make a 

statement, I think Senator Bond would like to 

read a statement. And the only thing that I 

could suggest is that any -- if -- it seems to 

me that it would be a good idea to try to get 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

140 

the -- SC&A to help -- the contractor help and 

assist in these SEC reviews. I know it was 

talked about at a meeting last August and 

(unintelligible) it wasn't needed, but anything 

that we can do to try to process and facilitate 

this -- this whole process I think would be 

helpful and --

DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. Well, as we indicated in our 

discussion a little earlier that we are in the 

process of putting in place a task order for 

that very purpose. 

MR. HORGAN: Sounds good. Sounds good. 

DR. ZIEMER: Thank you, Tom. 

MR. HORGAN: Well, I'm going to head -- I have to run 

to another meeting, but thanks again for having 

this conference call so that everybody could 

attend. 

DR. ZIEMER: Right. Other members of the public who 

wish to speak? 

UNIDENTIFIED: Hello? 

DR. ZIEMER: Yes. 

UNIDENTIFIED: Can you hear me? 

DR. ZIEMER: Yes. Please identify yourself and -- 

MS. LOVING: My name is --

DR. ZIEMER: -- (unintelligible) comment. 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

141 

MS. LOVING: -- (unintelligible) Loving and my father 

was Wendell D. Pirtle (unintelligible) worked 

there for a period of about seven years. My 

father passed away a week ago yesterday from 

his cancer and I had hoped and prayed that he 

would live long enough to get to see this come 

through so that he could get some good out of 

it instead of his granddaughters, but I guess 

that didn't work. But I'm just so extremely 

angry with this. I've worked on this for five 

years for them and right now I'm just so angry 

there's not words to convey how I feel about 

this. 

DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, it's understandable. We certainly 

-- I give you our sympathy. 

MS. LOVING: Yeah. Well, I -- and I understand the 

meeting is going to be April 25th in Cedar 

Rapids? 

DR. ZIEMER: That's correct. 

MS. LOVING: And (unintelligible) -- 

DR. ZIEMER: 25th and --

MS. LOVING: -- location --

DR. ZIEMER: -- 6th and 7th. We'll be there for 

three days. 

MS. LOVING: 5th, 6th and 7th? 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

142 

DR. ZIEMER: Right. 

MS. LOVING: And do you know the location? 

DR. ZIEMER: Let's see -- Cori Homer, can you tell us 

the location? It's a hotel. 

MS. HOMER: We're going to be at the Crowne Plaza 

Five Seasons. 

MS. LOVING: Okay. 

MS. HOMER: And that would be on 350 -- 350 First 

Avenue. 

MS. LOVING: I know where that's at and so -- and the 

IAAP section, what -- what day and what time is 

that? 

DR. ZIEMER: We will be starting after lunch, it'd be 

1:00 o'clock on Tuesday the 26th and plus a 

public comment session that evening, and then 

through the morning -- through the noon hour on 

the 27th. 

MS. LOVING: Okay. I -- I (unintelligible) Dad's 

life I promised him that I would see this 

through and I intend to keep that promise for 

him because it's just not right that these 

people don't see any (unintelligible) from it 

and they're all dying off, and it's their 

families that benefit -- which they should, but 

it should have been my father that got to see 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

143 

the good out of this money. And I just am so 

extremely angry --

DR. ZIEMER: Hopefully you'll be able to attend those 

meetings --

MS. LOVING: Oh, I will --

DR. ZIEMER: -- in Cedar Rapids. 

MS. LOVING: -- be there. 

DR. ZIEMER: Good. 

MS. LOVING: I will be there. 

DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. 

MS. LOVING: Thank you. 

DR. ZIEMER: Are there other members of the public 

who wish to speak? 

MR. ANDERSON: Bob Anderson (unintelligible). 

DR. ZIEMER: Bob, yes. 

MR. ANDERSON: I also want to echo the last caller in 

-- since I wrote the letter in '97 over 400 

people have passed away that have been -- could 

have been affected or benefited from this 

measure. And if we take longer to solve or 

come to conclusion again, more people are 

dying. So I -- I urge everyone to do their 

best, to work their hardest and I hope that we 

can see a conclusion this time in Cedar Rapids. 

That's all. 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

144 

DR. ZIEMER: Thank you, Bob, for your input on that. 

Any others? 

UNIDENTIFIED: I did not get the hotel. Sorry. 

DR. ZIEMER: Crowne Plaza Hotel, was it, Cori? 

MS. HOMER: Yes, Crowne Plaza Five Seasons. 

UNIDENTIFIED: Five Seasons, okay. I thank you. 

MS. HOMER: You're welcome. 

DR. ZIEMER: Any others who wish to make comment? 

MS. BROCK: This is Denise Brock. I'd like to --

DR. ZIEMER: Hi, Denise. 

MS. BROCK: Hi. I would like to thank the Board for 

their hard work and their diligence and I would 

also like to thank SC&A and NIOSH, as well, Dr. 

Wade, for having this meeting. I'd just like 

to thank everybody involved in this for their 

hard work and look forward to seeing everybody 

in Iowa. 

DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Thank you. 

DR. MCKEEL: Dr. Ziemer, this is Dan McKeel from St. 

Louis. 

DR. ZIEMER: Yes, Dan. 

DR. MCKEEL: I just have a comment about transparency 

which relates to the issue that was central at 

the February meetings (unintelligible) the 

content of the six boxes of new information 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

145 

that basically has delayed the decision on the 

Mallinckrodt SEC 00122. And my -- my comment, 

I guess, since we can't ask questions, is I 

didn't hear any comment today about whether the 

report has been delivered to the Board or what 

was in those boxes, and in particular is that 

information available to the public. I sent a 

FOIA request to obtain an index of that 

information back in March the 10th and I have 

received no -- no reply to date. So I -- it's 

just a comment that that -- 

DR. ZIEMER: Well, I think we can get a status in-- 

report for you here. What -- Lew or Larry, can 

you tell us what's available for Dan -- or for 

the public from -- from those documents? Or 

any -- any of the NIOSH folks. 

DR. WADE: Larry, I -- is Larry on? 

MR. ELLIOTT: Yes, I'm on, and the -- the supplement 

to the evaluation report for Mallinckrodt's SEC 

petition spoke to the contents of -- I believe 

it was -- actually turned out to be five boxes, 

and Dr. McKeel, I think your -- your FOIA 

request or your -- your request for information 

on that is still in the process of being 

responded to. We have provided to the 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

146 

petitioners, as well as the Board, the 

supplement to the evaluation report, as well as 

the revised site profile and also a listing of 

all of the documents that are relevant to 

Mallinckrodt Destrehan Street. And I intend to 

have a phone conversation with the petitioners 

hopefully this week, now that they've had that 

in their hands for a little bit of time, so 

that we can address any questions or concerns 

they have about what we have presented there. 

DR. NETON: This is Jim Neton. I might add that the 

supplement to the SEC petition evaluation 

report is on our web site, as well, so you 

could go there and find a description -- a 

discussion of the boxes. 

MS. BROCK: And this is Denise Brock. Dr. McKeel, if 

you would like to -- I had talked to Kay the 

other day. If you would like to come over to 

my house, I actually have that and we can also 

go through the boxes that I have because I 

think a lot of that could be just duplicative. 

We -- we can go through the list and my boxes 

together, if you'd like. 

DR. MCKEEL: Thank you. 

DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Dan, did that answer your 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

147 

inquiry? 

DR. MCKEEL: Well, I guess -- in a way it does, yes, 

but the -- of course the other issue is the 

response time to my FOIA request, which I guess 

is forth-- forthcoming, so I appreciate that. 

DR. ZIEMER: Okay. 

DR. MCKEEL: Thank you. 

DR. ZIEMER: Are there other members of the public 

who have comments? 

MS. DORNFELD: Only a quick one -- this is Debbie 

Dornfeld, Senator Jim Talent's office. 

DR. ZIEMER: Yes, uh-huh. 

MS. DORNFELD: I just wanted to say thank you, 

appreciate the opportunity to be a part of the 

call, and just appreciate the Board's continued 

hard work. 

DR. ZIEMER: Thank you very much for that comment. 

MS. BROCK: And thank you, Debbie, and Jim Mitas, as 

well. I'm sorry, this is Denise Brock. I 

forgot to thank you all earlier. Thank you so 

much for -- for listening. 

MR. MITAS: Dr. Ziemer and --

DR. ZIEMER: Yes. 

MR. MITAS: -- the Board, this is Jim Mitas with 

Congressman Akin. We do appreciate your very 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

148 

hard work and your (unintelligible) on this 

issue. I know it's been a long 

(unintelligible) for you all and you're having 

to deal with legislative requirements as well 

as (unintelligible) responsive to the hundreds 

of folks who have -- are waiting for a finding. 

So we thank you for your hard work in this and 

applaud your -- your work. Thank you so much. 

DR. ZIEMER: Thank you very much for that comment. 

Others? 

MS. GRAHAM: Dr. Ziemer, this is Paula Graham. I 

want to --

DR. ZIEMER: Yes, Paula. 

MS. GRAHAM: -- thank you and the Board for all the 

work you're doing and we appreciate it and 

we're thankful that we're going to have a 

chance to talk together in Cedar Rapids 

(unintelligible). 

DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Thank you. Do I have any other 

members of the public who wish to comment? 

MS. ZIMMERMAN: Dr. Ziemer, this is Sue from 

Congressman Leach's office. I just --

DR. ZIEMER: Yes, Sue. 

MS. ZIMMERMAN: -- want to thank you very much. 

DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

 

149

 (No responses) 

DR. ZIEMER: Board members, any final comments before 

we adjourn? 

MR. PRESLEY: Yes, this is Bob Presley. I have a 

question for Mark. 

DR. ZIEMER: Go ahead, Bob. 

MR. PRESLEY: Mark, are you on there? Did you get a 

car or are you going to be riding with me this 

afternoon? 

DR. ZIEMER: We may have lost Mark, but -- Bob, you 

okay? 

MR. PRESLEY: I'm here. 

DR. ZIEMER: I didn't hear Mark reply. You guys may 

have to work that out separately. 

Board members, any other comments? 

 (No responses) 

DR. ZIEMER: If not, I'll declare the meeting 

adjourned and we'll look forward to seeing 

everyone in Cedar Rapids, April 25th. 

(Whereupon, the teleconference was adjourned at 

11:12 a.m.) 
 

_____________________ 

150 

C E R T I F I C A T E OF COURT REPORTER 

STATE OF GEORGIA 

COUNTY OF FULTON 

 I, Steven Ray Green, Certified Merit Court 

Reporter, do hereby certify that I reported the 

above and foregoing on the day of April 11, 

2005; and it is a true and accurate transcript 

of the testimony captioned herein. 

 I further certify that I am neither kin 

nor counsel to any of the parties herein, nor 

have any interest in the cause named herein. 

 WITNESS my hand and official seal this the 

3rd day of May, 2005. 

STEVEN RAY GREEN, CCR 

CERTIFIED MERIT COURT REPORTER 

CERTIFICATE NUMBER: A-2102